Do you mean this last game? The assertion was that the fourth line was out when they need a goal badly. This wasn’t such a tune. And it wasn’t the fourth line. I didn’t see the whole game but maybe he was just giving Hathaway a little extra time.
I’m speaking to the last game regarding Hathaway. But in general I’m as cknfused as the next guy as to why GG feels the need to stick that 4th line on the ice with 3 minutes left when losing or even only up by a goal.. it’s unnecessary and obviously hasn’t worked.. but continues to happen with zero results.
As for Hathaway, he looked good on that fourth line with his energy but was not so extraordinary that he deserved to supplant Ferland in the last 2 mins. If it was to send a message, who was the message intended for? Why not just give the whole fourth line some extra time rather than simply alienating Ferland?
Anyway,I was shedding light on your original question of 4th liners getting time in the dying minutes as an aside.
My main point is about scouting, systems and player usage within the system to get the most out of this team at ALL times which seems to pass by GG and his coaching team.
Either management has taken him aside and had a discussion or he's got that vibe from the building not unlike when layoffs are coming at your workplace when people get tight lipped. He's feeling heat and knows he has to do something sooner than later.
He has to be nervous right? Back to back to back big games coming up this week. Would he survive an 0-3-0 record in those games? I don't think he lasts if that is the outcome.
He has to be nervous right? Back to back to back big games coming up this week. Would he survive an 0-3-0 record in those games? I don't think he lasts if that is the outcome.
One thing that I find Gulutzan having issues with is trying to force the breakout when teams have it figured out, and not having a real answer when that very same breakout is used against us.
Here it is in basic form. The breakout itself is a good one (just used ad nauseum sometimes) that when executed properly, traps two forecheckers deep in your zone while exiting the zone with speed, the center charging straight out and the far-side winger cutting towards the middle, both at full stride. The speed through the neutral zone often leads to scoring chances off the rush.
Here is what it looks like live (when it works well)
Babcock actually busted it out against us as well. It works great if the forecheckers bearing down forget which lanes they're supposed to cover. Look at the positioning of our 4th line forwards as opposed to the organized counter-strategy of Tortorella's below. Marner here was under no significant pressure and was able to dish to Bozak, who is off to the races with Hyman. Smith had to make an insane save on Marner here as a result of the forecheckers being a full second behind the play mentally.
However, as we saw vs Columbus, they had a very set plan in place to counter this with their forecheck. Foligno here forces Brodie behind the net to make that set play. As soon as he does this, Foligno's teammates Bjorkstrand and Milano are ready to neutralize the strong side winger. Bjorkstrand takes away the passing lane to Jankowski while Milano rides Bennett into the boards. Sam tries to make the safe play of chipping it out to the neutral zone but is stopped by Jones at the blueline. Janko loses his guy trying to pressure him and Bjorkstrand ends up getting a solid scoring chance on net, forcing Smith to make a good save.
__________________
Until the Flames make the Western Finals again, this signature shall remain frozen.
The Following 38 Users Say Thank You to Gaskal For This Useful Post:
I’m speaking to the last game regarding Hathaway. But in general I’m as cknfused as the next guy as to why GG feels the need to stick that 4th line on the ice with 3 minutes left when losing or even only up by a goal.. it’s unnecessary and obviously hasn’t worked.. but continues to happen with zero results.
As for Hathaway, he looked good on that fourth line with his energy but was not so extraordinary that he deserved to supplant Ferland in the last 2 mins. If it was to send a message, who was the message intended for? Why not just give the whole fourth line some extra time rather than simply alienating Ferland?
Anyway,I was shedding light on your original question of 4th liners getting time in the dying minutes as an aside.
My main point is about scouting, systems and player usage within the system to get the most out of this team at ALL times which seems to pass by GG and his coaching team.
I don't mind sending bottom players out at the end in a blowout (either way).
I'm not sure what all the people who complain about player usage are getting at, aside from the PP. The fourth line gets two-three shifts a period at most. The first and second line are deployed properly. I'm cognizant of the arguments around Brodie, but IMO there aren't many clean solutions there, since I think Stone is a little overrated here (and so is his time with Brodie last year) and since I don't want to break up Gio and Hamilton.
I get why people complained about the matchups in the Toronto game, but for a long time they worked. Matthews was stifled pretty well by having to watch the Monahan line. The issue was depth scoring (and a couple flukey goals). At the end of the day, the Monahan line wasn't as up to the top v. top matchup as I hoped. At some point that's going to have to work though.
IMO the recent drop in play from the team is tied to (a) the top line not scoring as much and (b) the second line not performing as well. Those lines are solid - I can't advocate changing the personnel at all. But they've just underperformed over a 4 game stretch. The top line just wasn't good last night.
The third line looks OK but I'm still waiting for Jagr magic. IMO he's the weak link on that line right now. He makes some smart plays, but he gets bumped off or stripped at the end of the day. There are a lot of plays that he keeps alive but they end up also dying on his stick.
Frankly, while it'd be lovely to have a few goals from the fourth line, what did we all expect? The line was +1, which is a win for the line in my book.
Last night, even though you can't hang a loss on him, .762 isn't quite up to Smith's standard as well.
Here is what it looks like live (when it works well)
Gaskal this is great!! I was thinking about breakouts and what is going wrong. This illustration I think is exactly how Gulutzan wants the team to play it out. Lots of support and short passes.
The breakdowns I am seeing goes to a lack of support. The far winger is flying up the ice looking for that breakout stretch pass, the center is usually higher up the zone and the close winger is standing on our blueline.
Things go bad when they stop moving their feet and stop supporting each other. The d-man who gets the puck is usually standing still (see Hamonic.. a lot). The forcheckers cut to the boards to block the close pass and the middle to cut the illustrated pass.
The defenseman has three choices.
1) skate with it - if they are standing still this fails.
2) reverse behind the net to his partner - delays things but allows more pressure against
3) chip is off the boards to the near winger - ends up being cut off and kept in the zone by the opposition.
All three tend to result in a turnover and an attack with a broken line that has to scramble to defend which ends up with someone out of position and the puck in the net.
I think Hamonic gets the brunt of this because Brodie tends to be flying up with the forwards and takes away the reverse as an option. That leaves two plays, both of which are bad, either he gets pinned on the boards or has his chip pass intercepted. His best bet is to "punt". Also demonstrated on the 6th Oiler goal was him standing in the corner waiting for the pass from Rittich. This is normal for Smith but the corner pass tends to hit these guys standing instead of in motion? Why do they wait? no clue.
They never stand behind the net with the puck to set things up anymore, while it can be frustrating to watch it helps prevent the problems they are having imo. Smith needs to play the puck less, leave it behind the net so they can execute like illustrated, because that also gives the option for a stretch pass or the one defenseman to skate it out alone. 5 options over 3.
Smith has been awesome in goal but I think his puck handling has made a mess of breakouts, which is what is leading to the disorganized play in the zone. Either he gets it to the neutral zone or lets the D handle it. And forwards need to be more aware of when to take off and when their D needs support.
Just my 2 cents.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
One thing that I find Gulutzan having issues with is trying to force the breakout when teams have it figured out, and not having a real answer when that very same breakout is used against us.
Here it is in basic form. The breakout itself is a good one (just used ad nauseum sometimes) that when executed properly, traps two forecheckers deep in your zone while exiting the zone with speed, the center charging straight out and the far-side winger cutting towards the middle, both at full stride. The speed through the neutral zone often leads to scoring chances off the rush.
Here is what it looks like live (when it works well)
Babcock actually busted it out against us as well. It works great if the forecheckers bearing down forget which lanes they're supposed to cover. Look at the positioning of our 4th line forwards as opposed to the organized counter-strategy of Tortorella's below. Marner here was under no significant pressure and was able to dish to Bozak, who is off to the races with Hyman. Smith had to make an insane save on Marner here as a result of the forecheckers being a full second behind the play mentally.
However, as we saw vs Columbus, they had a very set plan in place to counter this with their forecheck. Foligno here forces Brodie behind the net to make that set play. As soon as he does this, Foligno's teammates Bjorkstrand and Milano are ready to neutralize the strong side winger. Bjorkstrand takes away the passing lane to Jankowski while Milano rides Bennett into the boards. Sam tries to make the safe play of chipping it out to the neutral zone but is stopped by Jones at the blueline. Janko loses his guy trying to pressure him and Bjorkstrand ends up getting a solid scoring chance on net, forcing Smith to make a good save.
IMO, there are two issues here. One is that the initial D is taking way too long with that first pass and the other team has time to anticipate (like in the Columbus example). The second is that, even in this basic system, there's nothing wrong with another option if the play isn't there. The D can take a few steps to make the pass easier, or change the side of exit. In that example Hamonic is open - Brodie could give him the puck and exit the Jagr side (and he's probably a better guy to make the first zone exit pass anyway - he's not flying up the ice). But he got tunnel vision.
The practice that they had today where they apparently drilled hard might help the first - get the play going quicker - be automatic and on the tape with the passes. It won't help the latter unless they start to practice the secondary options.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
Important to note that once the franchise abandoned Sutter hockey of not to lose they immediately dropped like a stone in league standings to tie their worst franchise finish ever. The guy who preached fluidity creativity and the instinctiveness was an abject failure and now plies his trade in Latvia.
The Sutter years are a cautionary tale.
I couldn't disagree more.
Go back and look at that team that Brent got hired to coach. Look at that defence. There were three guys on that blue line that SHOULD have made the Olympic team if it wasn't for that system that made absolutely no sense for the team to play, and resulted in poor performances. A Regehr in his prime, Bouwmeester in his prime, Phaneuf who he couldn't manage but was a star, Sarich who was such a good defensive defencemen, and an up and coming Giordano. That's world class. How do you screw that up?
Brent took a perennial playoff team, and turned it into a perennial disappointment. His system was 100% designed around board battles. Exiting the zone? Up the boards! Generating offence? Chip and chase, and then cycle cycle cycle! Too bad the Flames were the oldest and second smallest team in the NHL at the time. That's beside the point, right? It was a great system!
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Brent's system was a good one, for the right team. Put that system on a large team like Anaheim, or St. Louis, etc., and it could maybe be fairly effective. Put it on a small team, and you see the results - long periods of being hemmed in the defensive zone, turning the puck over in the offensive zone a lot. Hey, the neutral zone was ok though.
As for Hartley, he was brought on for one last kick at the can - a time when most people on this board were screaming for a rebuild citing that this team was too old and didn't have the horses any longer. He also came on during the lockout-shortened season, one in which he didn't have the luxury of having a training camp to get his system implemented.
Now go and compare the Flames tough rebuild years with some other teams around the league. Edmonton. Toronto. Arizona. Buffalo. Those teams had abysmal seasons, and were horrible to watch. Calgary didn't really experience that. As fans, we were all like: "Rebuilds? Rebuilds are easy!" It wasn't until Hartley was saddled with the worst goaltending in the NHL that the team was difficult to watch.
At any rate, Hartley still managed to make the playoffs during a rebuild. Sutter didn't, even though he took a 'competing team' over. That's a huge, huge difference.
What does this mean in relation to Gulutzan? Is he a Brent Sutter? I don't think so. I think his system at least comes a lot closer to fitting what the Flames are than Brent's did. However, how effective is it? Is it poor? Is it really good, but the players aren't understanding it? Is it too complicated? Could be 10 more reasons as to why it hasn't been working. Your guess is as good as mine.
What I think we can agree on is that this team once again finds itself with a really strong blueline, but they are playing the most horrible defence that I have ever seen them play, including under Hartley.
Remember, Hartley forced the players on his team to come into camp in the best shapes of their lives, and then proceeded to run the most grueling camp in the NHL. Why? The creativity he allowed on offence - including from the defencemen - was balanced by forcing them to skate back really hard to cover on defence. For 1.5 seasons, it worked like a charm. Look at the talent level across all the lines, defencemen and in goal. To see him get that much out of his players was awesome.
Know what I most remember about Hartley's time here? It was a rebuild, but how come the Flames didn't get blown out game after game like so many other rebuilding teams do? The defensive side of that system must not have been that bad then, especially when you consider the goaltenders he had at his disposal that didn't steal many games at all.
What I think the Brent Sutter years illustrate the most to me is how important it is to find a good coach who can lead a team, and implement a system that actually takes into consideration the makeup of the team. Not quite sure if Gulutzan's does that or not, or how far it does, but that's what I took away from watching Brent Sutter throw away the last years of a playoff team away.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
Would be nice if the players had the freedom to cheat every once in awhile to go for that long stretch “Hartley” transition. Would keep the other team honest. Maybe they do and I just haven’t noticed but I can’t recall the last time we had a breakaway as a result of a nice stretch pass.
__________________
"Illusions Michael, tricks are something a wh*re does for money ....... or cocaine"
Great Work Gaskal!! As a poster you represent everything that makes CP great! Detailed analysis, a great win celebration and just enough reference to salty Oiler tears to bring out the best in the community.
Would be nice if the players had the freedom to cheat every once in awhile to go for that long stretch “Hartley” transition. Would keep the other team honest. Maybe they do and I just haven’t noticed but I can’t recall the last time we had a breakaway as a result of a nice stretch pass.
I actually have noticed it a lot - Gaudreau (who probably has a licence to do so) and sometimes from Ferland, who is probably a little too far up for GG's liking.
Gaskal this is great!! I was thinking about breakouts and what is going wrong. This illustration I think is exactly how Gulutzan wants the team to play it out. Lots of support and short passes.
The breakdowns I am seeing goes to a lack of support. The far winger is flying up the ice looking for that breakout stretch pass, the center is usually higher up the zone and the close winger is standing on our blueline.
Things go bad when they stop moving their feet and stop supporting each other. The d-man who gets the puck is usually standing still (see Hamonic.. a lot). The forcheckers cut to the boards to block the close pass and the middle to cut the illustrated pass.
The defenseman has three choices.
1) skate with it - if they are standing still this fails.
2) reverse behind the net to his partner - delays things but allows more pressure against
3) chip is off the boards to the near winger - ends up being cut off and kept in the zone by the opposition.
All three tend to result in a turnover and an attack with a broken line that has to scramble to defend which ends up with someone out of position and the puck in the net.
I think Hamonic gets the brunt of this because Brodie tends to be flying up with the forwards and takes away the reverse as an option. That leaves two plays, both of which are bad, either he gets pinned on the boards or has his chip pass intercepted. His best bet is to "punt". Also demonstrated on the 6th Oiler goal was him standing in the corner waiting for the pass from Rittich. This is normal for Smith but the corner pass tends to hit these guys standing instead of in motion? Why do they wait? no clue.
They never stand behind the net with the puck to set things up anymore, while it can be frustrating to watch it helps prevent the problems they are having imo. Smith needs to play the puck less, leave it behind the net so they can execute like illustrated, because that also gives the option for a stretch pass or the one defenseman to skate it out alone. 5 options over 3.
Smith has been awesome in goal but I think his puck handling has made a mess of breakouts, which is what is leading to the disorganized play in the zone. Either he gets it to the neutral zone or lets the D handle it. And forwards need to be more aware of when to take off and when their D needs support.
Just my 2 cents.
One other important note in all this is how much time that rear D has to move the puck. I think our neutral zone play is so soft that when our D man gets back to recover the puck the forechecker is right on top of him. Ditto for the strong side winger, who really isn't open for the pass - which is why we see that winger try to deflect the "up the boards pass" off of the boards to the streaking centre all the time...but we see coaches like Torts shut than lane down. We need to put more pressure on the opposing forwards to either make them dump the puck from closer to centre or at least slow them down.
Tl;dr we suck in the neutral zone.
The Following User Says Thank You to Infinit47 For This Useful Post:
IMO, there are two issues here. One is that the initial D is taking way too long with that first pass and the other team has time to anticipate (like in the Columbus example). The second is that, even in this basic system, there's nothing wrong with another option if the play isn't there. The D can take a few steps to make the pass easier, or change the side of exit. In that example Hamonic is open - Brodie could give him the puck and exit the Jagr side (and he's probably a better guy to make the first zone exit pass anyway - he's not flying up the ice). But he got tunnel vision.
The practice that they had today where they apparently drilled hard might help the first - get the play going quicker - be automatic and on the tape with the passes. It won't help the latter unless they start to practice the secondary options.
What I'm curious about is the sudden lean on stretch passes. The team was pretty solid when they had the forwards tight back to the defenders and breaking out like a unit. Lately though it's all stretch pass and a huge gap between the 2 and 3.
That works to an extent if you drag the defense from the other team and a forward out with them, but if the other team doesn't bite you get turnovers and not the bodies to cover the mess once it happens.
Are forwards cheating to create offence?
Or has Gulutzan altered the break out to lessen the forecheck?
It's not working.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
Know what I most remember about Hartley's time here? It was a rebuild, but how come the Flames didn't get blown out game after game like so many other rebuilding teams do? The defensive side of that system must not have been that bad then, especially when you consider the goaltenders he had at his disposal that didn't steal many games at all.
I think there's a lot of misremembering about the Hartley tenure. His last year he had some streaks where the Flames got beat pretty bad. Remember he started the year 2-9, and that little span sported losses to the Canucks (5-1), Jets (3-1), Oilers (5-2), Caps (6-2), NYR (4-1), NYI (4-0) and Habs (6-2). Near the end of the year he went 5-2 to the Leafs followed by 6-2 and 4-1 to Minnie and Chicago. Soon after that 8-3 and 3-0 in California. Only 3-2 against the 70 point Oilers who were mostly without McDavid. He also had two four game losing streaks and a seven gamer.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
Now go and compare the Flames tough rebuild years with some other teams around the league. Edmonton. Toronto. Arizona. Buffalo. Those teams had abysmal seasons, and were horrible to watch. Calgary didn't really experience that. As fans, we were all like: "Rebuilds? Rebuilds are easy!" It wasn't until Hartley was saddled with the worst goaltending in the NHL that the team was difficult to watch.
uh they had 1 miraculous year where they got world class goaltending to keep them in the hunt at the beginning of the year and what has to be an nhl record 11 come from behind 3rd period wins, followed up by the softest 1st round matchup they could have gotten out of either conference
every other year was just as terrible as any edmonton toronto or arizona season
What I'm curious about is the sudden lean on stretch passes. The team was pretty solid when they had the forwards tight back to the defenders and breaking out like a unit. Lately though it's all stretch pass and a huge gap between the 2 and 3.
That works to an extent if you drag the defense from the other team and a forward out with them, but if the other team doesn't bite you get turnovers and not the bodies to cover the mess once it happens.
Are forwards cheating to create offence?
Or has Gulutzan altered the break out to lessen the forecheck?
It's not working.
I don't think 'cheating' is the right word, I think it's a conscious adaption from the coaching staff to try and generate more offense.
The Flames were having trouble transitioning through the neutral zone earlier in the season because of a lack of speed exiting the zone. I believe the coaching staff response to that has been to loosen the tether so that the passes are leaving the zone at a higher rate of speed and are less likely to be picked off on the defensive side of the red line. That's a more manageable turnover than near the defensive blueline.
The Flames have actually allowed a few shots less per game over the last 10 games than the first 10, roughly 3-4 shots less per game, while putting the puck on net 2 more times per game. I think stretching things out more has contributed to generating more offense and lessening the amount of turnovers, but it hasn't really had a generally positive impact on outcomes or on goal differential.
Over the 1st 10 games of the season the Flames were 5-5 including an OT and shootout win. Over that span they had a goal differential of -6.
Over the last 10 they are 4-6 with an OT win and OT loss. Even though they've scored 5 more goals than they did through the first 10, the goal differential is actually worse, -9. Part of this can be attributed to Smith, but I don't think all of it. I think when you stretch things out looking for offense in the way the flames have done, you may get less blueline turnovers, but the offensive side of the redline turnovers allow a skilled team the opportunity to enter the flames zone both with speed and with organization.
The Flames function better scrambling for contested pucks around their own blueline than they do defending off the rush. They may generate less offense but they are significantly less exposed when defending individual battles than an attacking five man unit.
God, I am sick of hearing this. The system is good and when the players go out an execute it they are dominant. Rag on his bench management, motivation ability, or what have you that are valid points but the system is not a problem.
If a system does not produce a good product on the ice consistently, then I am sorry, but there is something wrong with that system.
It is either too complicated for the players using it, it is not communicated properly to the players, or it is not suited to the team that is expected to use it.
The Following User Says Thank You to redforever For This Useful Post:
