What is this teams identity?

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

If you are good as a team, then you probably do things well enough to set your team apart that people can ascribe an identity to your team.

When you are a team that needs to become good, it makes sense to have a philosophy to guide you, and around which you can rally, no?

You could just have the identity of having better players than the other team.

That's basically what Chicago was.

They weren't super skilled outside of Kane.

They weren't super fast outside of Keith.

They weren't the hardest working team in the league.

They had great two way players in Toews and Hossa, but they had a fair share of one way guys.

They weren't super tough.

They were just good really.

[Corral]

Small and delicate (as a team - not labeling every player as such)

[the2bears]

I just wish they were tough to play against.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

You could just have the identity of having better players than the other team.

That's basically what Chicago was.

They weren't super skilled outside of Kane.

They weren't super fast outside of Keith.

They weren't the hardest working team in the league.

They had great two way players in Toews and Hossa, but they had a fair share of one way guys.

They weren't super tough.

They were just good really.

I always saw the cup era Hawks as an uptempo puck possession team, with depth on the top 3 lines, solid defensive forwards like Hossa, good transition, quick puck movement, and always on the attack. With clutch game breakers. And an energetic 4th line. Frankly, an exciting team.

So do you think the Flames just need to be better, and that will get it done?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I think team identity is one of the most useless cliches in hockey.

Not every team can be gritty or underdogs or speedy. Beyond that, there aren't a lot of identities that mean much. Is being a possession team an identity? Having great goaltending? Defensively sound? Being young? Trying really hard?

And what is the identity of the other 30 teams? I don't think you'd be able to come up with one for more than 5-10 teams.

[Dion]

Fragile - Handle with care.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

That's basically what Chicago was.
They weren't super skilled outside of Kane.
They weren't super fast outside of Keith.
They weren't the hardest working team in the league.

You misremember because a lot of the guys on the Blackhawks teams have fallen off as the league continues to evolve trying to be the next Blackhawks. Relative to the league the Blackhawks were immensely skilled and suffocatingly fast, and played a very uptempo game. Any time you have a hall of famer like Marian Hossa on your team and he isn't your best winger, you are skilled. The Flames don't have that. Any time your number one center is a Team Canada lock known for relentlessness, tenacity and shutdown play while still being a potent and clutch offense force, you are considered hard working. When I think back to those good Hawks teams, it started with the Toews line suffocating their opponent's best and almost surely outscoring them, and then the second line with Hossa or Kane would play a counterpunch style that was hard to deal with.

That does raise the point of whether a team with Sean Monahan as its 1C can have an identity at all, since I'm still not sure what he brings to most shifts when he isn't scoring. Most good teams' identities are going to be defined by their best center - Crosby, McDavid, Getzlaf, Kopitar, Toews, Bergeron, etc.

[Rick M.]

Fragile wide-shooting muffin launchers.

[bluck]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I think team identity is one of the most useless cliches in hockey.

Not every team can be gritty or underdogs or speedy. Beyond that, there aren't a lot of identities that mean much. Is being a possession team an identity? Having great goaltending? Defensively sound? Being young? Trying really hard?

And what is the identity of the other 30 teams? I don't think you'd be able to come up with one for more than 5-10 teams.

That's actually a fair comment Cecil. If you were the coach from another team scouting the Flames and you went back to your room to describe "Who the Flames are and their style of play" what would you say?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by bluck

If you were the coach from another team scouting the Flames and you went back to your room to describe "Who the Flames are and their style of play" what would you say?

I'd say they're a phenomenally skilled but small winger, a linemate who's lethal in the slot, and a bunch of other guys.

[Rick M.]

The identity I’d like for the Flames is winners.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'd say they're a phenomenally skilled but small winger, a linemate who's lethal in the slot, and a bunch of other guys.

And a complete ass hole. Don't forget about him.

Edit: hmmm ass hole isn't censored.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I always saw the cup era Hawks as an uptempo puck possession team, with depth on the top 3 lines, solid defensive forwards like Hossa, good transition, quick puck movement, and always on the attack. With clutch game breakers. And an energetic 4th line. Frankly, an exciting team.

So do you think the Flames just need to be better, and that will get it done?

Is an exciting team really an identity though? Is skilled an identity even? Every Stanley Cup team is loaded with skill. Certainly any team capable of winning winning 3 Cups.

I mean the Hawks were just good in a lot of areas. I wouldn't say they had any kind of particularly strong identity besides being good.

And even if I do acknowledge that Chicago being fast and skilled was their identity, that doesn't mean that their identity made them good.

They were good because of having 5-6 of the league's best players and a decent supporting cast. Individually none of them were the most skilled, or the best player as an individual, but they were the team with the most depth of star players.

The identity can sometimes seem like something the media tries to attach to a hockey team because it's fun to talk about.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by bluck

That's actually a fair comment Cecil. If you were the coach from another team scouting the Flames and you went back to your room to describe "Who the Flames are and their style of play" what would you say?

Just to be clear, I didn't mean to suggest that this isn't a valid thread topic. They mention it on the fan all the time. I just don't really believe in identity.

I'd say a possession game maybe? Less of a physical team but lacking the high end skill some teams have. We certainly aren't an all out offensive team but we don't smother teams defensively, not by a long shot. However we do seem to be pretty good at limiting chances against.

We're kind of middle of the road in a lot of ways. That's not always a bad thing. I don't think there's a ton of benefit to being just a gritty team or tough team or skill team or team that relies on special teams or transition play.

The problem is that we haven't been able to execute at a high enough level for our gameplan/identity to work.

[FiveSeven]

Their identity is they have none.
The underachievers.
The inconsistent ones.

[mrdonkey]

Buttery soft, unprepared, and mentally fragile. Very easy to play against, very hard to cheer for.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by bluck

That's actually a fair comment Cecil. If you were the coach from another team scouting the Flames and you went back to your room to describe "Who the Flames are and their style of play" what would you say?

The way this team was built, they should be defined by their defensemen.

Doesn't seem to be happening.

[klikitiklik]

[Duffalufagus]

Lack of depth and talent.

[Lanny_McDonald]

A team that tries to play a perfect game with an imperfect system.