What is Ferlands potential with the flames?

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

A much better comparison, IMO, is Kassian. Like Kassian, Ferland has all the tools to be a great hockey player. For Kassian, his cement head gets in his way, but he'll show you very promising things every once in a while.

Ferland will also flash amazing skills periodically, and he does it more often. And far more importantly, he isn't the idiot that Kassian is. But big, fast, great shot, punishing hits. Both of these guys are capable of being very impactful players. And I think Ferland is the more likely to get there, just because he isn't as likely to get in his own way.

I can see the similarities for sure. I just see Kassian as more of a playmaker rather than a shooter and Ferland the other way around.

It'd be pretty tough for Ferland to be as big an idiot as Kassian. He's near the top of the league in that aspect. I think Kassian has played enough games that what you see is what you get at this point.

Ferland should still have some growth potential.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Oh, a scouting report from several years ago. Okay then. Draisaitl says hi.

Some guys actually work on, and improve their skating. Ferland is fast.

And saying something positive (that is true) about a player does not make you homer-esque. It is okay to disagree without pulling garbage (non) arguments like that out.

I guess you can't argue with someone that states their opinion is fact, where I've introduced not only my opinion but one that I've backed up with scouting Reports from a few years ago. Kelly Hrudey these very playoffs made a comp between Kassian and Ferland and gave the hands and hockey sense edge to Ferland and called Kassian the better skater.

Ferland >> Kassian overall, to be clear. But neither are what I'd call burners

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

neither are what I'd call burners

The Flames don't have a burner (maybe Brodie). The only true burners we've had in the last decade have been Matthew Lombardi and Paul Byron. Kylington is the only other player who would be considered one and he has yet to establish himself as an NHLer.

There is a huge gap between "not a burner" (which is a fair claim) and "speed not a + attribute" (your claim) or "keep up to NHL speed, but nothing more than that."

I think it's reasonable to think Ferland is in the top ~25 percentile of NHL straight-line skaters, at least as far as forwards go.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I really do believe people are still undervaluing Ferland here.

Think about it this way. Does the phrase: "Micheal Ferland the 20 goal scorer" seem like a pipe dream?

Ferland scored 15 goals this year, playing primarily low minutes in the bottom 6. Used primarily this season as an energy player.

If he starts on the top line, I think he can really build off of his goal totals. I would be surprised if a healthy Ferland playing on the top line, and (rightfully) pushing Brouwer off the PP, isn't a lock for scoring 20 goals. I think with his IQ and his shot, I would be surprised if he doesn't reach 30 goals (and yes, I am aware this is not the 1980's any longer) AT SOME POINT IN HIS CAREER, not necessarily this year or as a perennial scorer.

Ferland's hands are so underrated. The kid is a complete package of what you want in a power-forward, plus he gives you the added benefit of being completely trustworthy on the ice in not taking selfish penalties or even minors.

As for the whole 'Ferland is not a fast skater' or 'doesn't have a good first step or agility' - I think those are some of his strengths. If he had poor speed, acceleration AND agility (he is amazing at how agile he is given his thickness), he would sometimes be forced to hook and hold guys more. Because of his strong IQ and his overall speed, he not only rarely puts himself in poor positions, but he also has the physical tools to close gaps and recover well.

It is really fine to question exactly where Ferland ends up. However, he has basically all the tools he needs. I also disagree with the Kassian comment somewhat. I think Ferland is a better scorer AND a better playmaker. Kassian has soft hands for a big man too, and it isn't like he is unskilled at all, but that Ferland is really a full tier above Kassian. I guess we will see how they are relative to one another in time. I disagreed completely with Feaster telling Ferland that "he can be a Zack Kassian". I think he can be a heck of a lot better. I think he IS better.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

His consistency issues are so bad that he got himself promoted to the 1st line. I guess you're suggesting the coaching staff are complete idiots for doing this? Cause the player you're describing wouldn't have made it above the 4th line.

I think you're reading too much into what I said. I said I can see him putting up 40 points a couple of times if he plays in our top 6. I also said I don't think he's going to improve much from what he is, so logically that means I think he's very close to being good enough to put up 40 points, if not already there.

I don't see how you go from that to "the player you're describing wouldn't have made it above the 4th line". As I said, I'm not a big fan of his game in general, and don't see a big future. That doesn't mean I think he sucks.

You're smarter than the coaching staff? Sounds like you wouldn't even have him on the team and they have him on the 1st line? What a bunch of idiots I guess right?

The overall best line combinations with the players we had put him there. I've never said I was against putting him on the 1st line, even though he IMO didn't look very good outside the start. The coaches did fine with what they had, I have no beef with that. (I even thought we could have gone pretty far in the playoffs with those lines, if only we had some goaltending.)

Not sure why you're not a big fan then. You can see the tools, you can see the upside.

Do I have to be a big fan of every individual player who wears a Flames jersey? Sorry, I'm not like that. I'm more a fan of the team in general, I don't get that attached to most individual players. Some yes, but mostly the quiet consistent types or high skill players.

He's a complimentary player who plays a useful role. Is he a probable 60 point player? Nope. Don't understand why you're so down on him.

I agree he's a complimentary player who can be useful in a certain role. I just don't see that role being very big, and I'm having a hard time being excited about a complimentary players.

I'm also having a bit of a hard time seeing why people get so angry if everybody doesn't LOVE Micheal Ferland.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Itse

I don't see how you go from that to "the player you're describing wouldn't have made it above the 4th line". As I said, I'm not a big fan of his game in general, and don't see a big future. That doesn't mean I think he sucks.

This is what you said, "Most nights he's pretty much just filler. Not good enough defensively for a shutdown role, doesn't put up enough points for an offensive role, not consistent enough to be a really good energy player. Not bad enough to stand out, but not actually helping you win."

You said he's not good enough for a shutdown role, not good enough for an offensive role, not a good energy player, doesn't help you win. That pretty much says you think he sucks and shouldn't be on the team. Maybe you didn't realize how strongly worded your statement was there? Certainly it was false and clearly a lot of hyperbole. That is why I reacted strongly.

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm also having a bit of a hard time seeing why people get so angry if everybody doesn't LOVE Micheal Ferland.

I don't care if people don't love Ferland. But cut the BS about him not being good enough to be a defensive player, offensive player, energy player or help you win. Cause those statements were total utter BS. They make you look biased and that you hate him. Or that you weren't watching him. Cause really what you said there was indefensible. You were very careless with your words in that post. Pretty easy to see why people would disagree with that sentiment.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

That pretty much says you think he sucks and shouldn't be on the team.

No it doesn't? ...this is a weird conversation.

I don't really get it. In my experience, when people on hockey forums want to say "that guy sucks and shouldn't be on the team", they say "that guy sucks and shouldn't be on the team". Not "maybe a couple of 40 point seasons with good linemates".

I mean, two 40 point seasons is like twice as good as Joe Colborne! (That's a joke!)

I don't get why people think even messages that say nothing like it still mean "that guy sucks and shouldn't be on the team!" Is it because people automatically assume that everyone has one of two extreme opinions?

Maybe I should've coded my message with "meh" to put it in the universally acknowledged "no strong feelings either way" category? Anyway, that's my thought of the day. A misunderstanding over an ultimately trivial thing, I think we both get what the other means by now.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by TheFlamesVan

I agree 100%.

And I've said this before, but I seriously think he has the best shot release on the team. His snapper is top tier.

That honor has to go to Monahan I reckon. Ferly does have a great shot, but Monahan's is best.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

That honor has to go to Monahan I reckon. Ferly does have a great shot, but Monahan's is best.

Monahan and Ferland have terrific releases. But Hamilton may have the hardest wrister.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

The Flames don't have a burner (maybe Brodie). The only true burners we've had in the last decade have been Matthew Lombardi and Paul Byron. Kylington is the only other player who would be considered one and he has yet to establish himself as an NHLer.

There is a huge gap between "not a burner" (which is a fair claim) and "speed not a + attribute" (your claim) or "keep up to NHL speed, but nothing more than that."

I think it's reasonable to think Ferland is in the top ~25 percentile of NHL straight-line skaters, at least as far as forwards go.

Gaudreau's first few steps are burner qualities, but his top speed isn't. I would love if the Flames had a burner. I think that's why parting wirh Byron was such a painful event -- he had a skill not easily replaceable and nobody in the organization could fill that void.

If those types of players learn to finish, they're great goal scorers. Just like Grabner became one this year.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Gaudreau's first few steps are burner qualities, but his top speed isn't. I would love if the Flames had a burner. I think that's why parting wirh Byron was such a painful event -- he had a skill not easily replaceable and nobody in the organization could fill that void.

If those types of players learn to finish, they're great goal scorers. Just like Grabner became one this year.

Grabner has shown that (and better) before, I don't know that he learned anything new this year, he just has up and down years.

The problem with a "burner" like Byron, and why it was ok losing him, is that he really didn't show he belonged in the NHL full time and he only really had until the end of training camp to do it. He caught on with Montreal later on down the season, but the struggles the same way a lot of burners do: bad puck handling.

There's not many guys who can play and think at that speed at the same time. Byron definitely wasn't that when we lost him. Annoying if anything that he showed at least some ability to do that afterwards.

[EVERLAST]

When I read through this thread and think about how the hype of bringing in Brouwer and Ferlund finally progressing to the top line after Brouwer crapped the bed I want to see Ferlund do something in training camp to wake the coaches up.

Like .... Beat the tar out of people ( Brouwer )until he's put and kept on that top line, 1st power play unit and ask GG and co is this what you wanna see.

There were so many times Brouwer was sucking the life out of the team where Ferlund would have excelled.

The only thing he needs to work on allot to be more well rounded is face offs.

I really think we have yet to see the best in Ferlund and also see him being held back and I truly hope this up coming season we see Ferlund pushed and played in more minutes.

They said he worked on foot speed last offseason and he did look quicker.
I'd say he was more disciplined as well.

Ferlunds Ascension is no where near complete and when he is finally used and trusted in the right manner that confidence will come thru in an elevation I don't think anyone expects.

Can't wait to see what's in store for us next year.

[MarkGio]

Ferland has shown in the Vancouver series he can have an impact and dominate both offensively and defensively with limited ice time. He's then shown he can do it on the top line at times along side Gaudreau and Monahan.

Anybody who doesn't think Ferland had gamebreaking upside hasn't been watching. His only problem is consistency. Personally I think he's an ideal 3rd line winger. Him paired up with Bennett and Lazar should make for a great 3rd line next season.

10-12 mins a night matched up against energy forwards should be easy enough task if he gets quality linemates

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Grabner has shown that (and better) before, I don't know that he learned anything new this year, he just has up and down years.

The problem with a "burner" like Byron, and why it was ok losing him, is that he really didn't show he belonged in the NHL full time and he only really had until the end of training camp to do it. He caught on with Montreal later on down the season, but the struggles the same way a lot of burners do: bad puck handling.

There's not many guys who can play and think at that speed at the same time. Byron definitely wasn't that when we lost him. Annoying if anything that he showed at least some ability to do that afterwards.

I disagree. Byron during the 14-15 season probably had more breakaways than any other forward in the league. Even though he couldn't finish on them, he still kept other teams from taking risks on their power play, otherwise they risk Byron burning them. He always belonged in the NHL.

The Flames also didn't exactly have a good forward depth to line up with Byron. He was playing with Stajan, Jooris, Bouma, Bollig or Colborne. Byron is a good player when there's defenseman​ to feed him crisp, stretch passes so he can use his skills. Byron is not a cycle and crash-n-bang player.

[GranteedEV]

Yeah, there was at least a full calendar year from December 2013 through to early 2015 where I don't think Byron was ever healthy scratched, and we had an solid winning percentage over that span so it's not like we were a lottery team. It's simply revisionist history to say he wasn't a full time NHLer.

A bunch of unrelated injuries should never be a reason to give up on a player. They're unpredictable.