Will the Flames put it together?

[zamler]

I hope no one actually believes management has built this team to be a .500 hockey club in regulation.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Now this is very interesting. The point I have been making throughout this thread is that people's idea of where this team should be is out of whack. Both in terms of where they are in the standings, and in terms of what they look like when they play.

Where should this team be in the standings? Why?

What should this team look like when it plays? Why do you think they don't look like what they "should" look like?

Good teams look good while winning and look good when they lose. Sometimes you don't get the breaks. And yes, at times every team will look like crap.
Flames have been blown out a few times this year.


This season the Flames have played about 3 games where they looked great and had results to back it up.
They had games like the last one where they had good stats and had the puck more, yet were a shot away from losing. Is that good? Worrisome at the least.

I would like to see the team get up by a few early and let the 3rd and 4th lines have some fun and get some points. Most of the games are tight, a mistake away from letting games slip away.
They are so inconsistent, almost never a whole team effort. If its not Smith then its the top line that bails them out time and time again.

This is why I have a problem with GG. This team almost never looks "complete". It's so choppy.
Our PP can never be counted on. Wouldn't it be nice to score some PP goals and get 2 - 3 goal leads? Instead we ice Brodie and Brouwer on the top unit.
The top unit is missing 2 best offensive dmen and has a useless 4th liner on it. Let that sink in.
Today i heard GG talk about how PP goals are almost never scored from the point. It may be true. But he completely misses the point that covering for point shots creates room down low. I really don't get his line of thinking. Seems like he has that "i know better" arrogance and ignores simple things that have been proven for decades.

Flames are good enough to make the playoffs, but I don't expect to win a round. Top line will get shut down and we have no answer.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Red

Good teams look good while winning and look good when they lose. Sometimes you don't get the breaks. And yes, at times every team will look like crap.

Flames have been blown out a few times this year.





This season the Flames have played about 3 games where they looked great and had results to back it up.

They had games like the last one where they had good stats and had the puck more, yet were a shot away from losing. Is that good? Worrisome at the least...

Wins in which the Flames handily outshoot their opponent, carry the play, and get scoring contributions from 3/4 lines should never be characterized as “worrisome.”

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Red

...This is why I have a problem with GG. This team almost never looks "complete". It's so choppy.

Our PP can never be counted on. Wouldn't it be nice to score some PP goals and get 2 - 3 goal leads? Instead we ice Brodie and Brouwer on the top unit.

The top unit is missing 2 best offensive dmen and has a useless 4th liner on it. Let that sink in.

Today i heard GG talk about how PP goals are almost never scored from the point. It may be true. But he completely misses the point that covering for point shots creates room down low. I really don't get his line of thinking. Seems like he has that "i know better" arrogance and ignores simple things that have been proven for decades...

Let this sink in: the Flames presently have the #15 powerplay after having suffered through a 2/18 run without one of their top pp players. Yes, at present it does not look good, but special teams are often cyclical for most teams going through hit and cold stretches. What is perhaps concerning is how the team will manage over the course of the season with a personnel adjustment. But it is disingenuous to think that the present funk is an accurate characterization of the Flames powerplay for the full season.

Does Gulutzan perhaps know what he is doing? Until the powerplay numbers drop precipitously, then I would say he probably does.

[Fan69]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Wins in which the Flames handily outshoot their opponent, carry the play, and get scoring contributions from 3/4 lines should never be characterized as “worrisome.”

Agree most teams on most nights are one shot away from losing. Or a bad call. A missed assignment. A bad bounce.

This point in the season you need to be in the pack which is where they are. You need about 97 points to make the playoffs how you get there is the smaller part of the equation.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by zamler

I hope no one actually believes management has built this team to be a .500 hockey club in regulation.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by zamler

I hope no one actually believes management has built this team to be a .500 hockey club in regulation.

I would agree that at the 1/3 mark of the season the Flames record is not as good as I expected it would be, and I believe they are capable of better. But it is a long season, and no team just blitzes their way through 82 games. We will see where the Flames land at season’s end, and I remain cautiously optimistic that it will be in one of the top-three Division spots.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This is such a desperate and weak question. Everyone knows there is no justifiable answer - it is an opinion that a team's record is better or worse than their talent level suggests it should be. There is no way to prove a different point total is more justifiable.

But the opposite is also true.

I would assume that your stance is that their record indicates their talent level. I would rebut with: why do you think this? What do you see that justifies that?

If every teams' record is the best indicator of their talent level, then there is no such thing as under-performing or over-performing (which seems like a pretty ridiculous notion). Also, what then to make of teams that play poorly for a long stretch, and then suddenly put it all together and play great (and vice versa)? Did they suddenly become more (less) talented? Or are there other things at play?

The "if you think they are more talented, tell us why" post is just such an empty argument. We have already told you why: because we think there is more talent on the team than the record indicates. Tell us why there isn't.

That was a lot of bluster to say absolutely nothing.

As it happens, I am not the least bit surprised the Flames are what they are. I hoped they would be more this year, but they aren't, at least not yet. I'm not surprised because this is a team that exceeded expectations last year. There's a large body of evidence to suggest that a team with expectations has a very different experience than one without.

Last year, we were fresh off of finishing 4th worst or whatever it was. We picked up a new goalie and a new coach, but by and large we were the same team. Any expectations for last season's team really should be described as hope, not expectations. And despite the low bar, the team barely secured a wild card spot after an insanely hot streak to end the season. We were summarily swept in the first round.

The changes this year were a new #4D and a new goalie, but few seriously expected Smith to be anything more than a lateral move. And yet, fans, media, and team alike expected much more. They expected to compete for the division and likely win a round or even two in the playoffs.

However, we're still by and large the same team. Our core, outside of Gio and Backlund (both of whom have arguably taken a step back this year), are all under 25. A core that young which has never been expected to be a good team is going to have a lot of growing pains. And lo and behold...

Expectations have a crazy effect on teams. Look up north. The fact that we are treading water at this point is a positive sign.

There. Now you.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

That was a lot of bluster to say absolutely nothing.

As it happens, I am not the least bit surprised the Flames are what they are. I hoped they would be more this year, but they aren't, at least not yet. I'm not surprised because this is a team that exceeded expectations last year. There's a large body of evidence to suggest that a team with expectations has a very different experience than one without.

Last year, we were fresh off of finishing 4th worst or whatever it was. We picked up a new goalie and a new coach, but by and large we were the same team. Any expectations for last season's team really should be described as hope, not expectations. And despite the low bar, the team barely secured a wild card spot after an insanely hot streak to end the season. We were summarily swept in the first round.

The changes this year were a new #4D and a new goalie, but few seriously expected Smith to be anything more than a lateral move. And yet, fans, media, and team alike expected much more. They expected to compete for the division and likely win a round or even two in the playoffs.

However, we're still by and large the same team. Our core, outside of Gio and Backlund (both of whom have arguably taken a step back this year), are all under 25. A core that young which has never been expected to be a good team is going to have a lot of growing pains. And lo and behold...

Expectations have a crazy effect on teams. Look up north. The fact that we are treading water at this point is a positive sign.

There. Now you.

Nope. This team should he miles better than last year's.

New coach
Monahan injury
Johnnys hold out
No Stone, Hamonic or Kulak
No depth at forward. chiasson on the top line anyone?

The team was losing because the players played like crap.
This year we have players that are playing great. But results are about the same. What's the excuse now?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Red

What's the excuse now?

This here is the whole problem.

Hockey is not a morality play. Teams don't lose because they angered the hockey gods with their sinful ways. They don't win because Tinkerbell sprinkled them with goal dust for being such good boys in practice.

Whether they win or lose, there are reasons why this happens. There are no excuses, because there is nothing to excuse, unless one or more players obviously and persistently fail to do their jobs. (And we don't see a lot of people excusing that, anyway.) A reason is not the same thing as an excuse; but if you want to construct a neat little melodrama in which Virtue is Rewarded and Vice is Punished, you will get very angry whenever anybody merely analyses why a given outcome occurred – especially if the outcome is a loss.

If you want someone to blame after every single loss, don't blame the players or the coach. Blame yourself for thinking that as a fan, you have some sort of right to a win.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This here is the whole problem.

Hockey is not a morality play. Teams don't lose because they angered the hockey gods with their sinful ways. They don't win because Tinkerbell sprinkled them with goal dust for being such good boys in practice.

Whether they win or lose, there are reasons why this happens. There are no excuses, because there is nothing to excuse, unless one or more players obviously and persistently fail to do their jobs. (And we don't see a lot of people excusing that, anyway.) A reason is not the same thing as an excuse; but if you want to construct a neat little melodrama in which Virtue is Rewarded and Vice is Punished, you will get very angry whenever anybody merely analyses why a given outcome occurred – especially if the outcome is a loss.

If you want someone to blame after every single loss, don't blame the players or the coach. Blame yourself for thinking that as a fan, you have some sort of right to a win.

Have another drink. What a useless post in a sports forum.

[Strange Brew]

I think you are getting caught in semantics Jay. When people say excuse, I think we mean reason, but one that should not persist.

For example, Flames lost because they came off a long road trip.
Lack was awful because of his old goalie coach.
Brouwer was unproductive because he was nursing an injury.
Gaudreau had an off year because of his contract situation during camp..

If the results persist, turns out the excuse was likely not the reason. The optimistic fan finds reasons to explain losses that will likely not persist. The pessimist sees reasons why the loss is due to an ongoing situation.

Or you can be a perfect realist like I am.

[zamler]

Go look at yourself in the mirror. You are to blame when the Flames lose.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Red

Have another drink. What a useless post in a sports forum.

Thanks, I don't drink. But this place has become damn near unreadable because one group of posters keeps analysing why the team is so awful compared to their unrealistic expectations, and then another group calls them out for making excuses and accuses them of being some player's mother.

Anyway, you forgot to say ‘Hold my beer,’ because nothing is more useless than a post complaining about how useless another post is.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I think you are getting caught in semantics Jay. When people say excuse, I think we mean reason, but one that should not persist.

I've been on CP for well over a decade, and I know exactly the context in which the word ‘excuse’ is most often used, thank you. It generally means ‘face-saving lie made to help a {player | coach | team} weasel out of responsibility for their failures, which I'm not going to accept because I will not be talked out of whipping my favourite whipping-boy’.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by zamler

Go look at yourself in the mirror. You are to blame when the Flames lose.

Look at yourself in the mirror. You are to blame for being totally unable to read simple declarative sentences. That particular post is one of the most foolish and wilful misinterpretations I have ever read, even here, and that's saying something.

What I said was that the fans are to blame for thinking that every loss needs to be blamed on somebody's incompetence or misbehaviour. Face up, guys: there's a loser in every game, and it isn't always the better team that wins.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Look at yourself in the mirror. You are to blame for being totally unable to read simple declarative sentences. That particular post is one of the most foolish and wilful misinterpretations I have ever read, even here, and that's saying something.

What I said was that the fans are to blame for thinking that every loss needs to be blamed on somebody's incompetence or misbehaviour. Face up, guys: there's a loser in every game, and it isn't always the better team that wins.

What you wrote is ridiculous to me in any context.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by zamler

What you wrote is ridiculous to me in any context.

That's because you can't read, as I demonstrated previously.

Or would you care to say what specifically is ridiculous about what I said, instead of limiting yourself to drive-bys that merely show your complete incomprehension of the point? Your two insulting replies could have been made to any post on any board, and been generated by a bot. You didn't even attempt to address the topic.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Thanks, I don't drink. But this place has become damn near unreadable because one group of posters keeps analysing why the team is so awful compared to their unrealistic expectations, and then another group calls them out for making excuses and accuses them of being some player's mother.

Anyway, you forgot to say ‘Hold my beer,’ because nothing is more useless than a post complaining about how useless another post is.

Don't read then. It's a flames forum where people discuss the team. You chose to lecture about fans etc

You are in the wrong forum.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Red

Don't read then. It's a flames forum where people discuss the team. You chose to lecture about fans etc

You are in the wrong forum.

I've been here nearly as long as you have. Damned if I'll let a punk like you tell me to get out.