Fire Gulutzan/Give him Coach of the year All Purpose Thread - Page 18 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Corral · 11-03-2016, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

I hope not, we are still rebuilding. I think if they fired everyone for that it would signal to the league that Flames ownership has zero patience and can't stomach a true re-build. It would also make me think that the Flames are destined to be perpetually mediocre.

Sadly the Flames have been perpetually mediocre since 1995 - that's 21 years and counting.

TheoFleury · 11-03-2016, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corral

Sadly the Flames have been perpetually mediocre since 1995 - that's 21 years and counting.

But it's going to stop at some point... right?

Bandwagon In Flames · 11-03-2016, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corral

Sadly the Flames have been perpetually mediocre since 1995 - that's 21 years and counting.

Because 2004 didn't happen right? Or winning the division the following season.

Corral · 11-03-2016, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

But it's going to stop at some point... right?

Yes this season the Chicago Cubs proved that happens eventually.

Corral · 11-03-2016, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Because 2004 didn't happen right? Or winning the division the following season.

Mediocrity allows for some ups and downs as well. Only winning 3 playoff rounds in 2004 over a stretch of years with Mikka Kiprusoff and Jarome Iginla in their prime ... mediocre and very disappointing.

gallione11 · 11-03-2016, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Because 2004 didn't happen right? Or winning the division the following season.

Three (counting '14-'15 second round appearance) highlights out of 20 seasons is pretty damn mediocre if you ask me.

TheoFleury · 11-03-2016, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Because 2004 didn't happen right? Or winning the division the following season.

Okay. They've only been mediocre for 85% of the years between 1995 and 2016 (2004, 2006, 2015 are the exceptions IMO). Out of the first round twice since 1989 and missed the playoffs 12 of the last 17 years. It wears on you after a while.

calgaryblood · 11-03-2016, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corral

Mediocrity allows for some ups and downs as well. Only winning 3 playoff rounds in 2004 over a stretch of years with Mikka Kiprusoff and Jarome Iginla in their prime ... mediocre and very disappointing.

We were one of the best teams in the league for about 5 years so hardly mediocre.

Bandwagon In Flames · 11-03-2016, 09:12 AM

Some of you have such a short memory. Cut down on the beers you old farts. It's impossible to talk hockey with some of you when you can't even remember what happened last season.

Corral · 11-03-2016, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

We were one of the best teams in the league for about 5 years so hardly mediocre.

Hmmm.

TheoFleury · 11-03-2016, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

We were one of the best teams in the league for about 5 years so hardly mediocre.

What five years were those? I remember a strong 2006 team coming out of the lockout then a bubble team for the next 6-7 years, followed by a total rebuild (2013-present).

calgaryblood · 11-03-2016, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corral

Hmmm.

I don't think you know the meaning of "mediocre". It definitely didn't describe Calgary for about a 5 year stretch after 04.

calgaryblood · 11-03-2016, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

What five years were those? I remember a strong 2006 team coming out of the lockout then a bubble team for the next 6-7 years, followed by a total rebuild (2013-present).

The five years straight we made the playoffs and only one of I think 3 teams that did that.

gargamel · 11-03-2016, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl

Guys like Backlund, Frolik & Stajan have been playing well in GG's system. Maybe the system suits them better, or maybe they're better at adapting to this system than the younger guys?

I'm just hoping that this system doesn't, like B. Sutter's, make everyone on the team look mediocre, with 3rd and 4th liners playing better than usual and 1st and 2nd line guys underperforming. It's too early to say for sure, but the plan of having 3 equal defensive pairings scares me.

_Q_ · 11-03-2016, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

The five years straight we made the playoffs and only one of I think 3 teams that did that.

Mediocre means just average. Not bad, not great. In a league where about half the teams make the playoffs, simply getting in to the post season and getting eliminated in the first round is the definition of mediocre.

Outside of a few exceptional seasons, the Flames have been anywhere from terrible to mediocre since the early 90s.

CliffFletcher · 11-03-2016, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

We were one of the best teams in the league for about 5 years so hardly mediocre.

And one of the worst teams in the league for about 5 years.

So averaging it out over 20 years... mediocre.

Bandwagon In Flames · 11-03-2016, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Q_

Mediocre means just average. Not bad, not great. In a league where about half the teams make the playoffs, simply getting in to the post season and getting eliminated in the first round is the definition of mediocre.

Outside of a few exceptional seasons, the Flames have been anywhere from terrible to mediocre since the early 90s.

Mediocre has a negative connotation and means below average.

FanIn80 · 11-03-2016, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Mediocre has a negative connotation and means below average.

This word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

me·di·o·cre (adjective)

of only moderate quality; not very good.
"a mediocre actor"

synonyms: ordinary, average, middling, middle-of-the-road, uninspired, undistinguished, indifferent, unexceptional, unexciting, unremarkable, run-of-the-mill, pedestrian, prosaic, lackluster, forgettable, amateur, amateurish;

_Q_ · 11-03-2016, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Mediocre has a negative connotation and means below average.

No it doesn't.

There's literally not a single source that defines mediocre as below average. It has a negative connotation in sports because being average gets you nowhere. Nobody strives for mediocrity.

Edit: What FanIn80 said

FanIn80 · 11-03-2016, 10:14 AM

Also, there are two distinct thresholds that people use to judge the success of a sports franchise. One being winning vs. losing in an overall sense; the other being winning vs. losing in the playoffs.

We could have won the President's trophy for 20 straight seasons, but if we still never won a Cup and only made it out of the first round three times, I would absolutely refer to that as a mediocre era at best. In my opinion, the regular season is nothing more than an 82-game time-trial to decide who has pole position once the real race begins.