[Rumour] UPD: Jagr confirms Flames have interest in him.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Not sure what's worse, trying to pass off this exaggerated, hyperbolic opinion based off the first split squad game of the PRE-season or trying to suggest the majority of fans are fooled and that you see through it.

It's a bogus take. We did just fine against other big teams like LA last year.

Anaheim has had our number for a while, but all of those game were competitive and with a few more bounces it could have been different story. With the way our core is much younger than theirs we have a lot of room to grow and improve.

Don't agree with your premise at all, but object more so with you trying to use the first six periods of the entire year in the pre-season to put if forth.

Actually I'm not sure what you read but I mentioned in my original post there that it was a problem in the Anaheim series. I also happen to think it's a lingering problem from all of last year actually as they struggle to cycle the puck outside the Backlund line. I happen to think that their smaller size relative to other teams means they have a tough time gaining possession on the forecheck and then actually keeping possession during the cycle down low in the offensive zone. It isn't a problem against all teams so much as teams that are clearly bigger like Anaheim and Edmonton.

[PepsiFree]

Common sense suggests that if you see something nobody else sees, there's an extremely high chance it doesn't exist. It's not generally something to boast about.

I haven't seen any warning signs of Calgary having puck control difficulties, and certainly not any that are size related. Thankfully the archaic infatuation with size that landed us talent-lacking prospects like Hunter Smith is slowly dying. Size is meaningless in the sense that how you play the game can overcome a lack of it, or negate any benefits of an abundance of it.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Actually I'm not sure what you read but I mentioned in my original post there that it was a problem in the Anaheim series. I also happen to think it's a lingering problem from all of last year actually as they struggle to cycle the puck outside the Backlund line. I happen to think that their smaller size relative to other teams means they have a tough time gaining possession on the forecheck and then actually keeping possession during the cycle down low in the offensive zone. It isn't a problem against all teams so much as teams that are clearly bigger like Anaheim and Edmonton.

Again, my issue was primarily with the suggestion it was evident in a pre-season game that was every single player's first game-play of the year like that's somehow proof of what you're suggesting as a whole.

Beyond it, I still disagree with what you're saying and it makes no sense. Again, we played some bigger teams like LA just fine as far as possession goes. The first two Oiler games came early last season which was a write-off. We also hammered the Ducks one game at home. You're picking and choosing single games all over the map to support a premise you've constructed in your head and suggested you're smarter than everyone else for seeing it.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Common sense suggests that if you see something nobody else sees, there's an extremely high chance it doesn't exist. It's not generally something to boast about.

I haven't seen any warning signs of Calgary having puck control difficulties, and certainly not any that are size related. Thankfully the archaic infatuation with size that landed us talent-lacking prospects like Hunter Smith is slowly dying. Size is meaningless in the sense that how you play the game can overcome a lack of it, or negate any benefits of an abundance of it.

Right. Which is why we got swept by Anaheim. Also I'm not saying the whole team has to be big guys, but you know, one would help (or at least play big).

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Common sense suggests that if you see something nobody else sees, there's an extremely high chance it doesn't exist. It's not generally something to boast about.

I haven't seen any warning signs of Calgary having puck control difficulties, and certainly not any that are size related. Thankfully the archaic infatuation with size that landed us talent-lacking prospects like Hunter Smith is slowly dying. Size is meaningless in the sense that how you play the game can overcome a lack of it, or negate any benefits of an abundance of it.

In fairness, I think if you can can get a player with size combined with speed and skill they will be more sought after than a similar small player. Major problem is that big players like that are rare.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Right. Which is why we got swept by Anaheim. Also I'm not saying the whole team has to be big guys, but you know, one would help (or at least play big).

Chicago was also swept by Nashville. Guess that mean's they're undersized and terrible at possession as well.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Again, my issue was primarily with the suggestion it was evident in a pre-season game that was every single player's first game-play of the year like that's somehow proof of what you're suggesting as a whole.

Beyond it, I still disagree with what you're saying and it makes no sense. Again, we played some bigger teams like LA just fine as far as possession goes. The first two Oiler games came early last season which was a write-off. We also hammered the Ducks one game at home. You're picking and choosing single games all over the map to support a premise you've constructed in your head and suggested you're smarter than everyone else for seeing it.

Nah, just an opinion based on what I've seen. I know it'll be unpopular because it is something that's negative towards the Flames, but just my observation in watching them, I understand we will never agree so will leave it at that. I also never claimed I was smarter than anyone at all, not sure where you got that from but since we are now transitioning into labelling each other things I have noticed you're fairly hostile.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Nah, just an opinion based on what I've seen. I know it'll be unpopular because it is something that's negative towards the Flames, but just my observation in watching them, I understand we will never agree so will leave it at that. I also never claimed I was smarter than anyone at all, not sure where you got that from but I have noticed you're fairly hostile. Consider chilling out.

Says the guy who accused everyone else of being too caught up in "group think" to see what you've figured out.

I don't think you are even reading what you're saying. There's nothing hostile about pointing out it's a very poorly conceived take based on several false premises.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Chicago was also swept by Nashville. Guess that mean's they're undersized and terrible at possession as well.

That's weird, why would you illogically jump to that conclusion? Is that what I said?

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

That's weird, why would you illogically jump to that conclusion? Is that what I said?

I don't think you're even realizing what you've said from post to post.

You keep mentioning we were swept by Anaheim like it proves your argument. Sometimes good teams lose to other good teams, especially when one is considerably younger and less experienced than the other.

Again, using reasoning like that - and pointing to the first two games of the pre-season - just struck me as several points that were extremely suspect.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Says the guy who accused everyone else of being too caught up in "group think" to see what you've figured out.

I don't think you are even reading what you're saying. There's nothing hostile about pointing out it's a very poorly conceived take based on several false premises.

okay fair enough. I'll refrain from giving opinions from here on out, you are right.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

okay fair enough. I'll refrain from giving opinions from here on out, you are right.

I don't think anyone would say that. But they could be put forth without suggesting anyone who doesn't see it that way is caught up in group-think. Additionally, opinions are subject to criticism and you seem really bothered that you've been questioned about the way you've constructed your position.


I think on the whole what you're trying to label as too soft / poor at possession is a combination of lack of experience and maturity in a few, singled out instances. If you look up and down the line up, there are players with size and strength on each line. They all happen to be quite young (for the most part) with room to grow in size as well as maturity.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

I don't think you're even realizing what you've said from post to post.

You keep mentioning we were swept by Anaheim like it proves your argument. Sometimes good teams lose to other good teams, especially when one is considerably younger and less experienced than the other.

Again, using reasoning like that - and pointing to the first two games of the pre-season - just struck me as several points that were extremely suspect.

No, I do not recall mentioning Chicago or Nashville actually at all. Anyway you could be right, I don't have stats or anything to back it up, just saying it's an observation I have made. Why do you think Anaheim won the series in 4 straight?

[Gaskal]

Elliott forgetting how to goalie in the last two home games of course.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

No, I do not recall mentioning Chicago or Nashville actually at all.

I'm really starting to suspect you're being obtuse. I was simply pointing out that your logic was very linear and one dimensional suggesting the Flames lost to Anaheim specifically because of your insistence they're too small and poor at possession as a result. For a second time, sometimes good teams lose (and even get swept) by other good teams (which is why I pointed to that other series).

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Why do you think Anaheim won the series in 4 straight?

Because they were a 105 point team that was the Pacific division champions playing a much younger, less experienced team in the Flames. That and our horrendous goaltending. Despite the short series, I thought each game was competitive for the most part, but that like they did in the Edmonton series, Anaheim relied on their veterans and experience.

[Sandman]

I think what Coffee is saying is that size and toughness can still help-it's still an intangible in today's game, albeit far less a factor in games as it used to be. These days it's far more about skill and puck management.

That said, I don't think this team has a problem with size or toughness-I remember an article somewhere saying that we were top-5 in average height.

[dino7c]

Calgary got swept losing four one goal games (EN goals aside) with an .880 save percentage.

Them losing had nothing to do with size

[Strange Brew]

It's not wrong to say Flames don't play their best against heavy teams. Gaudreau in particular is not great against such teams, and I have heard him say it himself, that his least favorite teams to play are heavy teams a la St. Louis. Blame goaltending all you want but the team's record against Anaheim speaks for itself.

But I don't believe Jagr is the answer.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Because they were a 105 point team that was the Pacific division champions playing a much younger, less experienced team in the Flames. That and our horrendous goaltending. Despite the short series, I thought each game was competitive for the most part, but that like they did in the Edmonton series, Anaheim relied on their veterans and experience.

You forgot to mention that Calgary was missing Gio and Hamilton for the series and were playing their 5/6 guys as top 4 and using AHL tweener guys as 5/6.

Oops that was the Ducks missing their #1 and #3 defensemen who combined played more than Gio/Hamilton over the regular season.

The Ducks line-up that swept the Flames would have had trouble making the playoffs ... they were missing 11.5M of cap space on their defense.

They were a better playoff team than the Flames. Somehow they protected Bieksa who for this series was a key player from Ferland. How did the Flames not take advantage of the San Diego Gulls defense (Theodore and Montour) and the Ducks #7 Holzer ?

[JFK]

Blame goaltending all you want, because goaltending was the problem. The Flames might have fared better being a heavy harder-to-knock-off-the-puck team but they unequivocally would've been better with even decent netminding.