The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[Resolute 14]

Well, no. But only because you move from a bottom six issue to a fourth line issue. But hopefully that will iron itself out with Stajan being let go, Brouwer being bought out (doubt that will actually happen, even if it is the only beneficial move for the team), and youth filling the spot with perhaps a cheap veteran to anchor it.

Also, if you're pushing both Ferland and Frolik into the bottom six, you now have two holes in the top six to fill.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, no. But only because you move from a bottom six issue to a fourth line issue. But hopefully that will iron itself out with Stajan being let go, Brouwer being bought out (doubt that will actually happen, even if it is the only beneficial move for the team), and youth filling the spot with perhaps a cheap veteran to anchor it.

Also, if you're pushing both Ferland and Frolik into the bottom six, you now have two holes in the top six to fill.

Do you though?

With the trickle down you have one of Bennett, Ferland or Frolik on the fourth line ... that's solid.

Brouwer is Brouwer, I actually haven't minded him this year.

And you have Lazar and Hathaway battling with Foo, Dube, Mangiapane for a spot with a cheap contract.

How much more would you invent in a fourth line? To me there pieces are there if you add someone to the top six.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Almost every single player's shooting percentage has become worse under Gulutzan than it was under Hartley. The system is broken.

Just goes to show that possession isn't everything. It's what you do with it that counts. The Flames need to stop taking all the low percentage shots/attempts and concentrate on setting up opportunities with a high probability of success.

How DARE you question The System!

The System is Life!

The System is Love!

KnowThe System!

Trust The System!

Love The System!

All Hail The System!

The System has brought us.........actually nothing much.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Do you though?

With the trickle down you have one of Bennett, Ferland or Frolik on the fourth line ... that's solid.

Brouwer is Brouwer, I actually haven't minded him this year.

And you have Lazar and Hathaway battling with Foo, Dube, Mangiapane for a spot with a cheap contract.

How much more would you invent in a fourth line? To me there pieces are there if you add someone to the top six.

That is one solid piece, sure.

And yes, Brouwer is Brouwer. Which is why I want him gone by any means necessary. He generates no offense of his own, and almost everyone has a better CF% without Brouwer than with. Most notably, and most dramatically, Bennett and Jankowski. You can practically tie the struggles those two have had directly to when Brouwer was on their wing.

[Erick Estrada]

I think Frolik hasn't had a great season as a top 6 player and he's a guy I would like to see moved the 3rd line permanently and I think that would be a good start in regards to improving the bottom 6.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That is one solid piece, sure.

And yes, Brouwer is Brouwer. Which is why I want him gone by any means necessary. He generates no offense of his own, and almost everyone has a better CF% without Brouwer than with. Most notably, and most dramatically, Bennett and Jankowski. You can practically tie the struggles those two have had directly to when Brouwer was on their wing.

I think the buy out will create more pain than the player given the payout schedule and the coming contracts to core pieces in Tkachuk, Bennett, and Ferland.

With the contract heading into the back nine in October I'd ride it out. His underlying numbers are certainly better this year, even if his production hasn't returned.

Sam Bennett has played only 51 minutes with Brouwer this year.
Mark Jankowski only 17.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Bingo

And I think the bottom six needs to be fleshed out a little more as to how that looks.

Ideally they get a trickle down from the top six RW pushing Frolik to the third line.

If that's the case you have ...

Jankowski, Bennett, Ferland, Frolik which is actually a very good start to the bottom six with the addition of that top line winger. With Brouwer back that's 5, and a push from Dube/Foo to add to Hathaway, Lazar and Shore ...

there really isn't a bottom six issue with the top six winger added.

Somehow that top six winger pushed both Ferland and Frolik into the bottom six.

[Resolute 14]

The payout schedule saves us $3 million next year and $3 million in 2019-20 at the cost of $1.5 million in 2020-21 and 2021-22. I can live with that. Not only does it help the team now by ridding us of a negative value player, but that $1.5 million won't break the bank in those two seasons.

Also, are you sure about your ice times? I have Bennett at 94 minutes and Jankowski at 69 with Brouwer at 5 on 5. In all situations, 124 minutes with Bennett and 78 with Jankowski.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Somehow that top six winger pushed both Ferland and Frolik into the bottom six.

Good point!

That makes more sense. So Frolik comes out for sure ... with maybe Ferland on the second line leaving Bennett - Jankowski - Frolik as a third line.

So I'm more with Res14 now ... they need to add another piece to the bottom six as well.

Sorry guys.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The payout schedule saves us $3 million next year and $3 million in 2019-20 at the cost of $1.5 million in 2020-21 and 2021-22. I can live with that. Not only does it help the team now by ridding us of a negative value player, but that $1.5 million won't break the bank in those two seasons.

Also, are you sure about your ice times? I have Bennett at 94 minutes and Jankowski at 69 with Brouwer at 5 on 5. In all situations, 124 minutes with Bennett and 78 with Jankowski.

Yep my bad again ...

stupid job getting in the way

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

Fine, ignore Dallas then. Colorado, San Jose, and LA are also flawed teams that are in the playoffs, and if one of them misses it's because Dallas passed them.



Of the players you mentioned:

Glass and Hamilton played a total of about 130 minutes in 17 games allowing a total of 4 goals against
Versteeg has played 24 games, with 4 goals for and 5 against
Jagr's lines had 12 goals for and 6 against in his 22 games.
Brouwer's played just about every game and he's -1
Bartkowski has played 14 games, with 4 goals for and 7 against

For this flames team, it's not about goals against, it's about goals for. That group collectively has scored 10 goals on the year. 10 goals for in a collective 135 games. That is simply not good enough. That's how you can have a player in the top 10 in scoring and as a team be all the way down in 22nd.

Most teams don't have a great winning record when their top lines don't produce, but the Flames are more reliant on their top line than most teams in the league. They don't have the luxury of exceptional point production from the second line, so it has to be by committee. That's where things break down.

So the players who weren't good enough add up to a total impact of -3 goals. Hardly a season-ruining performance from the bottom of the roster. If that's "by far the biggest weakness on the team", you're in pretty good shape.

But since you're blaming our poor season on the lack of NHL talent, surely the players without NHL talent would be the ones getting out-scored, right? That's why I brought up Backlund and Frolik. If we're losing because of a lack of talent, surely the guys at -15 and -12 are the culprits?

Make no mistake about it, down years from Frolik and Backlund are having a huge impact on the roster. They are examples of the lack of depth. You'd hope someone would be able to take a bit of the load off them both defensively and offensively but the team is lacking options. At this point last year, Backlund had 8 more goals than he does this year. If Backlund is on the same scoring pace, the Flames are probably in the playoffs this year. He's 8 goals and 9 points off last years pace, with a +14 to a -16. I know you probably looked at the numbers, I'm not trying to patronize.

This may shock you, but I don't like the Backlund contract extension and I don't think he's good enough offensively to be a second line centre on a contending team. Frolik falling off the earth this season due to injury is a major factor in that, but again, not enough offense to be a legit top 6 player in my mind. 23 points from your second line RW isn't good enough.

I'm not trying to suggest there's an obvious answer here with no drawbacks. If there was, there wouldn't be nearly as much arguing going on here. But chemistry isn't a predictable thing, and they've tried so few options that we just don't know if the good outweighs the bad for some of them. Sometimes there are combinations out there that can be more than the sum of their parts.

In my opinion, GG gets unfair blame for not 'mixing up the lines' enough. The team wins games based on the performance of the first line, full stop. So, you can't really mess with that line unless you're willing to entertain losing the game. WHen Ferland went down with injury, bennett got a spot up there, and the first game he played there against arizona was good, bennett scored a goal. But then....the whole line didn't register a point for 5 games. So, in my opinion if you're pushing for a playoff spot, that experiment is over. Maybe if you're not pushing so hard, if you've identified this as a development season, you try different line combos for longer. The Flames don't ever have those kinds of seasons though, every season is a push, so every season needs maximum winning effort.

You can't split up the second line for basically the same reason as the first. Bennett or Ferland there instead of Tkachuk has been less than stellar. So was Brouwer who has seemingly stunk up the joint everywhere.

This is what I mean by lack of options. You can't both try and win every night at the same time as changing the line combinations that are working. You can't give Bennett time on the top line if you also want your best chance at winning games. And again, if this season was a holding pattern season (like last year should've been treated), then maybe you have the freedom to play around a bit more and try different things out, but that's now how this franchise works. It's go time.

My point is that when the team as a whole isn't succeeding, is the best course of action really to throw our hands in the air and say "we're not good enough!" At least if we'd tried a bunch of different things and failed at all of them, we'd be able to more confidently say the roster isn't good enough. As it stands, I'm terrified of a lot of potential moves that may happen this summer, because I think there's a good chance that the guy we move out dramatically outperforms his trade value once he's in a better situation.

Well, that comes down to fan expectations. The Flames are right about where I thought they would be; falling out of the playoffs due to injuries that roster depth can't cover for. They don't have the depth like other teams to cover for their injuries, and they burned basically all of their tradeable assets just to get to be a team on the bubble.

San Jose can weather the Thornton injury in part because they have better forward depth, but also in part because they didn't move a ####load of draft picks this summer preventing them from improving the roster with Evander Kane down the stretch when the injury bug bit. The Flames are a bubble team after moving a wheelbarrow full of picks. Since the end of last season, the Sharks by comparison have moved out a 5th, 7th, 1st and 4th, and acquired a 6th, 2nd and 4th rounder. If Kane doesn't sign with them, that 1st becomes a 2nd and the Sharks are basically neutral in draft picks over the course of a year, while still being more competitive than the Flames.

A lot of those arguments don't really matter when evaluating the quality of the roster right now.

They absolutely do. They tell you in a general sense where the roster is in terms of talent and organizational momentum.

Who cares where we were in the standings two years ago? That year, Winnipeg was 25th, Columbus was 27th, and Toronto was 30th. All three are good teams today that will make the playoffs.

Uh...Those three teams picked in the top 3 in the draft, picking 2 of the best players in the league. That was the second top 10 pick in as many years for Columbus, who now have a 14 goal 20 year old defender on the roster who scored 47 points in his rookie year. Yes, Tkachuk is awesome and the Flames nabbed him in that draft, but to put it in perspective, Laine has played 2 more games than Tkachuk and scored 42 more goals. Columbus basically walked away from back to back drafts with 2 tkachuks. The Flames would absolutely be right there with them in my opinion if they'd done the same. If the Flames had drafted Laine and Kyle Connor in back to back drafts, they'd be a contender.

So, I hope you can see how previous history for a franchise can tell you a lot about how the team will perform in the here and now and into the future as well.

And again, when the majority of our core was acquired in the last 3-4 years, why does it matter that we missed the playoffs 6 years ago?

Because 6 years ago the Flames only made 5 draft picks in the whole draft. Yes, they walked away with Gaudreau, but they didn't walk away from that draft with anything else, and for a team lacking scoring punch, that's a huge problem. What does it tell you about the organization that in a season where they missed the playoffs they deficit spent on picks? Does that look anything like this year to you? Does that suggest some kind of organizational flaw where a team picks as high as 13th and only has 4 more picks that entire draft? The year before that, they didn't draft until 64th overall, despite again having missed the playoffs. The Flames are on their third GM by that time and still doing similar things.

Does that sound familiar at all? This year the Flames aren't slated to draft until the 4th round. 90th something. Last year, their first pick was 16th and their next pick was 109th. Is there something in the Glenmore resevoir?

Should Chicago feel good about where their team is at right now?

No, but again, they were maybe the best team in the league for the last decade, have 3 cups over that span and were going to struggle predictably this year after losing Hossa and Hjalmmerson and having their defensive core age out of competitiveness. They'd probably still be in the thick of it though without a serious injury to their starting goalie. Where would Calgary be if they'd only gotten 28 games from Mike Smith this year instead of 52?

They've made the playoffs 9 years in a row.

And they've made 6 more draft picks than the Flames in the last 3 years. They won the cup as recently as 4 seasons ago.

Should we be writing off Boston? They've missed 3 of the last 4 years. How about Winnipeg? They've also missed in 6 of 7 and haven't won a playoff game in franchise history.

These comparisons are getting more and more bizarre. Boston was a presidents trophy candidate until they lost perhaps their best player with a broken Foot for 11 games and counting and are still third in the league. What kind of goofus would write them off because they missed the playoffs two years ago? Do you think I would be writing the Flames off if they were the 3rd best team in the league this year just because 2 years ago they missed?

Imagine this Flames roster without Monahan for 11 games. Where would they be?

(The Bruins have also drafted more than the Flames over the last 3 years, including SIX 1st round picks)

As for our scoring - obviously that was a concern. That's the biggest weakness our team has. But the point I'm trying to make is having flaws doesn't immediately make you a bad team. Every team has flaws. You have to quantify those things and evaluate them in the context of the team as a whole. Obviously we weren't going to score 300 goals this year. But we were still roughly average last year, and we scored more goals than either of LA's cup winners. 220 goals is plenty if you're great defensively.

Goal Scoring is the biggest weakness you can have in the NHL. Until the Flames get the best goalie in the league, the best defender in the league and a top 3 2-way centre, they are going to have to score their way to success.

In my opinion, being 17th in both goals for and against is not very 'average'. 16 teams make the playoffs, more than half the league, so finishing outside of that figure is in my opinion decidedly below average. But if we take it by thirds, then yeah, the Flames were an average team. This year? Below average. 22nd in the league in goals for, 19th in goals against. The Flames are 24 goals short of the top 10 in the league, which is basically exactly where I had them pegged at the start of the season. 10 more goals from the 9 players who have played in the bottom 6 this year and 5 more goals from Backlund probably puts the team firmly in the playoffs. That's where the team depth has killed Calgary this year.

We're not debating about whether or not they should be a playoff team, we're debating why they aren't. You're arguing that the roster isn't good enough. I'm arguing the roster is good enough, but the coaching falls short.

And I'm saying the Flames are bad because the organizational philosophy is terrible and the Flames will never find success if they keep doing the same things. How can it be coaching if the previous 2 coaches have had basically the same amount of success or even less?

The team couldn't score enough last year, got swept in the playoffs and can't score enough again this year and will miss the playoffs. What is the 'evidence' that Gulutzan is the reason the Flames are going to miss the playoffs this year, and not, say, getting ~10 goals out of ~100+ games from 8 or 9 guys? Lazar has never been a scorer, is it Gulutzan's fault he has 2 goals this year in 57 games, or does that suggest he's probably not playing with good offensive players while being a weak offensive player himself?

The team is bad, man. The team is predictably bad. The team is bad for a predictable reason. The team has been bad for a long time. In 2012-2013, GG was coaching the Dallas Stars and had them produce the exact amount of goals as the Hartley coached Flames did that year. The stars have basically the same year to year record as the Flames. Last year, no playoffs, the year before, round 2, the year before, no playoffs, the year before round 1.

Maybe it's the organization that is the problem? Is it possible for us to agree that GG isn't the worlds greatest coach but that a team with Hathway and Brouwer getting third line minutes that maybe it's also not the worlds greatest team?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The Flames and Stars actually have a lot of parallels:

• Both teams hung onto the core of their last really good rosters for too long without a realistic shot at contending, until the players lost their value and couldn't be used to jump-start a rebuild.
  
• Both teams never did a full rebuild with stockpiled picks and a patient draft and develop strategy, but got impatient once they had two or three really nice pieces and started taking short cuts.
  
• Both now have middle of the road rosters with limited prospects of growth from within, and have to hope they get really lucky with a diamond in the rough prospect or a goalie playing out of his mind to really have a shot at contending in the playoffs.
  
• Both have struggled to find the right coach.

The Stars were in bankruptcy protection for 3 years before being sold in 2011. They hung onto their core because they were desperate for revenue to justify a sale.

It was a flat out business decision stewarded by the league at that point.

The Flames? Eh, not so much.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The average NHL forward that has played more than 40 games this year has a shooting percentage off 11.4%

Only Ferland, Monahan, Jankowski and Tkachuk top that. Notable misses ... Gaudreau, Bennett, Backlund, Frolik, Brouwer, Stajan, Versteeg.

The average NHL defenseman that has played more than 40 games this year has a shooting percentage of 5.2%

Only Giordano and Hamilton have topped that. Notable exceptions are Brodie who is shooting below the career average of Laddy Smid, Kulak and Stone who are well below the Smid line.

This team can't finish.

And this doesn't take into account how often they miss the net!

Doesn't this make the next logical question, "Why can't so many players on this team finish?"

1) Rule out garbage players. The players had higher shootinger percentages in the past, so the underlying reason likely isn't having too many players that are sub-par shooters. Looking at the age of players, it's not likely explainable by "post-apex" decline either

2) Rule out bad luck. First, define bad luck as randomness that goes against your favor. Next, assuming the decline in shooting percentage is random (ie bad luck) requires us to assume that its not connected to the same factor affecting multiple players the same way. That in turn requires a "no correlation of bad shooting percentages among players" assumption. What is the likelihood that independently of each other, all these players are having bad years for shooting percentage? It's very very low. Ergo, its unlikely to bad luck and likely to be a common driver that's causing their shooting percentage to be low.

3) Try and think of other variables that can explain the problem. What other variables could cause a collection of good player's on a team to all have a reduced shooting percentage. Note here that is HAS TO BE A COLLECTIVE FACTOR because this is the only way to explain the positive correlation between the weak shooting percentage. It can be a collective mental problem (ie player's holding their sticks to tight) - but this doesn't explain why top tier players had good years. It might also be a collective strategy problem - the system doesn't generate enough offensive.

4) It's likely a system issue that does not allow for the generation of enough offense for lower quality players. Given the ability of top talent players to play well in this system (Hamilton, Gio, Monahan, Johnny) and weaker players play progressively worse in the system (the lower the talent level of the player, the worse of a season the player had), one can come to the hypothesis that the system itself does lend itself to generating sufficient offense to win hockey games.

5) Why does the system not generate sufficient offense for players with lower quality offensive skill?

This is where the eye test comes in because advance stats can't get into this minutia. In my view the eye test shows the flames take too long too transition the puck 5-on-5, which allows the opposition defense to set up defensively. They also play too defensively without the puck, which reduces the number of odd man rushes they generate.

And the lower quality the offensive prowess of the flame's player, the more difficulty he has generating offense against a team that is fully ready for his attack. IE - lower quality players have trouble scoring 5-on-5 because they have less talent and this is overcome by generating odd man attacks (2-on-1s, 3-on-2s, etc) of which the flames generated much fewer than the other team!

At a high level, the individual player stats fit the narrative. It might explain why the flames got decent third line production from Janko or Bennett (relative to the rest of the bottom six), two of the more offensively talented third line players. It also explains the continued drop-off for Brouwer and the fact that Lazar couldn't do anything offensive all season. Or why any of the call ups from the AHL had no offensive success. Or why Frolik's and Backlund - who are better known for their responsible two way play - had disappointing offensive seasons, even more-so once you consider the large progression taken by Tkachuk in the off-season.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Doesn't this make the next logical question, "Why can't so many players on this team finish?"

1) Rule out garbage players. The players had higher shootinger percentages in the past, so the underlying reason likely isn't having too many players that are sub-par shooters. Looking at the age of players, it's not likely explainable by "post-apex" decline either

2) Rule out bad luck. First, define bad luck as randomness that goes against your favor. Next, assuming the decline in shooting percentage is random (ie bad luck) requires us to assume that its not connected to the same factor affecting multiple players the same way. That in turn requires a "no correlation of bad shooting percentages among players" assumption. What is the likelihood that independently of each other, all these players are having bad years for shooting percentage? It's very very low. Ergo, its unlikely to bad luck and likely to be a common driver that's causing their shooting percentage to be low.

3) Try and think of other variables that can explain the problem. What other variables could cause a collection of good player's on a team to all have a reduced shooting percentage. Note here that is HAS TO BE A COLLECTIVE FACTOR because this is the only way to explain the positive correlation between the weak shooting percentage. It can be a collective mental problem (ie player's holding their sticks to tight) - but this doesn't explain why top tier players had good years. It might also be a collective strategy problem - the system doesn't generate enough offensive.

4) It's likely a system issue that does not allow for the generation of enough offense for lower quality players. Given the ability of top talent players to play well in this system (Hamilton, Gio, Monahan, Johnny) and weaker players play progressively worse in the system (the lower the talent level of the player, the worse of a season the player had), one can come to the hypothesis that the system itself does lend itself to generating sufficient offense to win hockey games.

5) Why does the system not generate sufficient offense for players with lower quality offensive skill?

This is where the eye test comes in because advance stats can't get into this minutia. In my view the eye test shows the flames take too long too transition the puck 5-on-5, which allows the opposition defense to set up defensively. They also play too defensively without the puck, which reduces the number of odd man rushes they generate.

And the lower quality the offensive prowess of the flame's player, the more difficulty he has generating offense against a team that is fully ready for his attack. IE - lower quality players have trouble scoring 5-on-5 because they have less talent and this is overcome by generating odd man attacks (2-on-1s, 3-on-2s, etc) of which the flames generated much fewer than the other team!

At a high level, the individual player stats fit the narrative. It might explain why the flames got decent third line production from Janko or Bennett (relative to the rest of the bottom six), two of the more offensively talented third line players. It also explains the continued drop-off for Brouwer and the fact that Lazar couldn't do anything offensive all season. Or why any of the call ups from the AHL had no offensive success. Or why Frolik's and Backlund - who are better known for their responsible two way play - had disappointing offensive seasons, even more-so once you consider the large progression taken by Tkachuk in the off-season.

This has happened to a few teams every year good and bad.

Some of the time it's a sign of a eroding core, sometimes a coach, sometimes it is luck.

I'm not advocating luck as the principal answer, they need to dig deep on that and come up with their own conclusions, but I'm also not going 100% to systems either (coach) as there are too many supporting numbers that suggest they're getting more than enough chances to finish.

And once again eye test is subjective.

The Flames to me were out playing and out chancing teams, but that's just me. Recently however they seem to be giving up more, and creating less ... all the while throwing everything on net.

The numbers matched what I was seeing in both circumstances.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

For this flames team, it's not about goals against, it's about goals for. That group collectively has scored 10 goals on the year. 10 goals for in a collective 135 games. That is simply not good enough. That's how you can have a player in the top 10 in scoring and as a team be all the way down in 22nd.

Most teams don't have a great winning record when their top lines don't produce, but the Flames are more reliant on their top line than most teams in the league. They don't have the luxury of exceptional point production from the second line, so it has to be by committee. That's where things break down.

Make no mistake about it, down years from Frolik and Backlund are having a huge impact on the roster. They are examples of the lack of depth. You'd hope someone would be able to take a bit of the load off them both defensively and offensively but the team is lacking options. At this point last year, Backlund had 8 more goals than he does this year. If Backlund is on the same scoring pace, the Flames are probably in the playoffs this year. He's 8 goals and 9 points off last years pace, with a +14 to a -16. I know you probably looked at the numbers, I'm not trying to patronize.

This may shock you, but I don't like the Backlund contract extension and I don't think he's good enough offensively to be a second line centre on a contending team. Frolik falling off the earth this season due to injury is a major factor in that, but again, not enough offense to be a legit top 6 player in my mind. 23 points from your second line RW isn't good enough.


In my opinion, GG gets unfair blame for not 'mixing up the lines' enough. The team wins games based on the performance of the first line, full stop. So, you can't really mess with that line unless you're willing to entertain losing the game. WHen Ferland went down with injury, bennett got a spot up there, and the first game he played there against arizona was good, bennett scored a goal. But then....the whole line didn't register a point for 5 games. So, in my opinion if you're pushing for a playoff spot, that experiment is over. Maybe if you're not pushing so hard, if you've identified this as a development season, you try different line combos for longer. The Flames don't ever have those kinds of seasons though, every season is a push, so every season needs maximum winning effort.

You can't split up the second line for basically the same reason as the first. Bennett or Ferland there instead of Tkachuk has been less than stellar. So was Brouwer who has seemingly stunk up the joint everywhere.

This is what I mean by lack of options. You can't both try and win every night at the same time as changing the line combinations that are working. You can't give Bennett time on the top line if you also want your best chance at winning games. And again, if this season was a holding pattern season (like last year should've been treated), then maybe you have the freedom to play around a bit more and try different things out, but that's now how this franchise works. It's go time.


Well, that comes down to fan expectations. The Flames are right about where I thought they would be; falling out of the playoffs due to injuries that roster depth can't cover for. They don't have the depth like other teams to cover for their injuries, and they burned basically all of their tradeable assets just to get to be a team on the bubble.

San Jose can weather the Thornton injury in part because they have better forward depth, but also in part because they didn't move a ####load of draft picks this summer preventing them from improving the roster with Evander Kane down the stretch when the injury bug bit. The Flames are a bubble team after moving a wheelbarrow full of picks. Since the end of last season, the Sharks by comparison have moved out a 5th, 7th, 1st and 4th, and acquired a 6th, 2nd and 4th rounder. If Kane doesn't sign with them, that 1st becomes a 2nd and the Sharks are basically neutral in draft picks over the course of a year, while still being more competitive than the Flames.

They absolutely do. They tell you in a general sense where the roster is in terms of talent and organizational momentum.


Uh...Those three teams picked in the top 3 in the draft, picking 2 of the best players in the league. That was the second top 10 pick in as many years for Columbus, who now have a 14 goal 20 year old defender on the roster who scored 47 points in his rookie year. Yes, Tkachuk is awesome and the Flames nabbed him in that draft, but to put it in perspective, Laine has played 2 more games than Tkachuk and scored 42 more goals. Columbus basically walked away from back to back drafts with 2 tkachuks. The Flames would absolutely be right there with them in my opinion if they'd done the same. If the Flames had drafted Laine and Kyle Connor in back to back drafts, they'd be a contender.

So, I hope you can see how previous history for a franchise can tell you a lot about how the team will perform in the here and now and into the future as well.

Because 6 years ago the Flames only made 5 draft picks in the whole draft. Yes, they walked away with Gaudreau, but they didn't walk away from that draft with anything else, and for a team lacking scoring punch, that's a huge problem. What does it tell you about the organization that in a season where they missed the playoffs they deficit spent on picks? Does that look anything like this year to you? Does that suggest some kind of organizational flaw where a team picks as high as 13th and only has 4 more picks that entire draft? The year before that, they didn't draft until 64th overall, despite again having missed the playoffs. The Flames are on their third GM by that time and still doing similar things.

Does that sound familiar at all? This year the Flames aren't slated to draft until the 4th round. 90th something. Last year, their first pick was 16th and their next pick was 109th. Is there something in the Glenmore resevoir?

No, but again, they were maybe the best team in the league for the last decade, have 3 cups over that span and were going to struggle predictably this year after losing Hossa and Hjalmmerson and having their defensive core age out of competitiveness. They'd probably still be in the thick of it though without a serious injury to their starting goalie. Where would Calgary be if they'd only gotten 28 games from Mike Smith this year instead of 52?

And they've made 6 more draft picks than the Flames in the last 3 years. They won the cup as recently as 4 seasons ago.

These comparisons are getting more and more bizarre. Boston was a presidents trophy candidate until they lost perhaps their best player with a broken Foot for 11 games and counting and are still third in the league. What kind of goofus would write them off because they missed the playoffs two years ago? Do you think I would be writing the Flames off if they were the 3rd best team in the league this year just because 2 years ago they missed?

Imagine this Flames roster without Monahan for 11 games. Where would they be?

(The Bruins have also drafted more than the Flames over the last 3 years, including SIX 1st round picks)



Goal Scoring is the biggest weakness you can have in the NHL. Until the Flames get the best goalie in the league, the best defender in the league and a top 3 2-way centre, they are going to have to score their way to success.

In my opinion, being 17th in both goals for and against is not very 'average'. 16 teams make the playoffs, more than half the league, so finishing outside of that figure is in my opinion decidedly below average. But if we take it by thirds, then yeah, the Flames were an average team. This year? Below average. 22nd in the league in goals for, 19th in goals against. The Flames are 24 goals short of the top 10 in the league, which is basically exactly where I had them pegged at the start of the season. 10 more goals from the 9 players who have played in the bottom 6 this year and 5 more goals from Backlund probably puts the team firmly in the playoffs. That's where the team depth has killed Calgary this year.



And I'm saying the Flames are bad because the organizational philosophy is terrible and the Flames will never find success if they keep doing the same things. How can it be coaching if the previous 2 coaches have had basically the same amount of success or even less?

The team couldn't score enough last year, got swept in the playoffs and can't score enough again this year and will miss the playoffs. What is the 'evidence' that Gulutzan is the reason the Flames are going to miss the playoffs this year, and not, say, getting ~10 goals out of ~100+ games from 8 or 9 guys? Lazar has never been a scorer, is it Gulutzan's fault he has 2 goals this year in 57 games, or does that suggest he's probably not playing with good offensive players while being a weak offensive player himself?

The team is bad, man. The team is predictably bad. The team is bad for a predictable reason. The team has been bad for a long time. In 2012-2013, GG was coaching the Dallas Stars and had them produce the exact amount of goals as the Hartley coached Flames did that year. The stars have basically the same year to year record as the Flames. Last year, no playoffs, the year before, round 2, the year before, no playoffs, the year before round 1.

Maybe it's the organization that is the problem? Is it possible for us to agree that GG isn't the worlds greatest coach but that a team with Hathway and Brouwer getting third line minutes that maybe it's also not the worlds greatest team?

Oh Flash, you and your snippy drive-by posts.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

For this flames team, it's not about goals against, it's about goals for. That group collectively has scored 10 goals on the year. 10 goals for in a collective 135 games. That is simply not good enough. That's how you can have a player in the top 10 in scoring and as a team be all the way down in 22nd.

Most teams don't have a great winning record when their top lines don't produce, but the Flames are more reliant on their top line than most teams in the league. They don't have the luxury of exceptional point production from the second line, so it has to be by committee. That's where things break down.

Make no mistake about it, down years from Frolik and Backlund are having a huge impact on the roster. They are examples of the lack of depth. You'd hope someone would be able to take a bit of the load off them both defensively and offensively but the team is lacking options. At this point last year, Backlund had 8 more goals than he does this year. If Backlund is on the same scoring pace, the Flames are probably in the playoffs this year. He's 8 goals and 9 points off last years pace, with a +14 to a -16. I know you probably looked at the numbers, I'm not trying to patronize.

This may shock you, but I don't like the Backlund contract extension and I don't think he's good enough offensively to be a second line centre on a contending team. Frolik falling off the earth this season due to injury is a major factor in that, but again, not enough offense to be a legit top 6 player in my mind. 23 points from your second line RW isn't good enough.


In my opinion, GG gets unfair blame for not 'mixing up the lines' enough. The team wins games based on the performance of the first line, full stop. So, you can't really mess with that line unless you're willing to entertain losing the game. WHen Ferland went down with injury, bennett got a spot up there, and the first game he played there against arizona was good, bennett scored a goal. But then....the whole line didn't register a point for 5 games. So, in my opinion if you're pushing for a playoff spot, that experiment is over. Maybe if you're not pushing so hard, if you've identified this as a development season, you try different line combos for longer. The Flames don't ever have those kinds of seasons though, every season is a push, so every season needs maximum winning effort.

You can't split up the second line for basically the same reason as the first. Bennett or Ferland there instead of Tkachuk has been less than stellar. So was Brouwer who has seemingly stunk up the joint everywhere.

This is what I mean by lack of options. You can't both try and win every night at the same time as changing the line combinations that are working. You can't give Bennett time on the top line if you also want your best chance at winning games. And again, if this season was a holding pattern season (like last year should've been treated), then maybe you have the freedom to play around a bit more and try different things out, but that's now how this franchise works. It's go time.


Well, that comes down to fan expectations. The Flames are right about where I thought they would be; falling out of the playoffs due to injuries that roster depth can't cover for. They don't have the depth like other teams to cover for their injuries, and they burned basically all of their tradeable assets just to get to be a team on the bubble.

San Jose can weather the Thornton injury in part because they have better forward depth, but also in part because they didn't move a ####load of draft picks this summer preventing them from improving the roster with Evander Kane down the stretch when the injury bug bit. The Flames are a bubble team after moving a wheelbarrow full of picks. Since the end of last season, the Sharks by comparison have moved out a 5th, 7th, 1st and 4th, and acquired a 6th, 2nd and 4th rounder. If Kane doesn't sign with them, that 1st becomes a 2nd and the Sharks are basically neutral in draft picks over the course of a year, while still being more competitive than the Flames.

They absolutely do. They tell you in a general sense where the roster is in terms of talent and organizational momentum.


Uh...Those three teams picked in the top 3 in the draft, picking 2 of the best players in the league. That was the second top 10 pick in as many years for Columbus, who now have a 14 goal 20 year old defender on the roster who scored 47 points in his rookie year. Yes, Tkachuk is awesome and the Flames nabbed him in that draft, but to put it in perspective, Laine has played 2 more games than Tkachuk and scored 42 more goals. Columbus basically walked away from back to back drafts with 2 tkachuks. The Flames would absolutely be right there with them in my opinion if they'd done the same. If the Flames had drafted Laine and Kyle Connor in back to back drafts, they'd be a contender.

So, I hope you can see how previous history for a franchise can tell you a lot about how the team will perform in the here and now and into the future as well.

Because 6 years ago the Flames only made 5 draft picks in the whole draft. Yes, they walked away with Gaudreau, but they didn't walk away from that draft with anything else, and for a team lacking scoring punch, that's a huge problem. What does it tell you about the organization that in a season where they missed the playoffs they deficit spent on picks? Does that look anything like this year to you? Does that suggest some kind of organizational flaw where a team picks as high as 13th and only has 4 more picks that entire draft? The year before that, they didn't draft until 64th overall, despite again having missed the playoffs. The Flames are on their third GM by that time and still doing similar things.

Does that sound familiar at all? This year the Flames aren't slated to draft until the 4th round. 90th something. Last year, their first pick was 16th and their next pick was 109th. Is there something in the Glenmore resevoir?

No, but again, they were maybe the best team in the league for the last decade, have 3 cups over that span and were going to struggle predictably this year after losing Hossa and Hjalmmerson and having their defensive core age out of competitiveness. They'd probably still be in the thick of it though without a serious injury to their starting goalie. Where would Calgary be if they'd only gotten 28 games from Mike Smith this year instead of 52?

And they've made 6 more draft picks than the Flames in the last 3 years. They won the cup as recently as 4 seasons ago.

These comparisons are getting more and more bizarre. Boston was a presidents trophy candidate until they lost perhaps their best player with a broken Foot for 11 games and counting and are still third in the league. What kind of goofus would write them off because they missed the playoffs two years ago? Do you think I would be writing the Flames off if they were the 3rd best team in the league this year just because 2 years ago they missed?

Imagine this Flames roster without Monahan for 11 games. Where would they be?

(The Bruins have also drafted more than the Flames over the last 3 years, including SIX 1st round picks)



Goal Scoring is the biggest weakness you can have in the NHL. Until the Flames get the best goalie in the league, the best defender in the league and a top 3 2-way centre, they are going to have to score their way to success.

In my opinion, being 17th in both goals for and against is not very 'average'. 16 teams make the playoffs, more than half the league, so finishing outside of that figure is in my opinion decidedly below average. But if we take it by thirds, then yeah, the Flames were an average team. This year? Below average. 22nd in the league in goals for, 19th in goals against. The Flames are 24 goals short of the top 10 in the league, which is basically exactly where I had them pegged at the start of the season. 10 more goals from the 9 players who have played in the bottom 6 this year and 5 more goals from Backlund probably puts the team firmly in the playoffs. That's where the team depth has killed Calgary this year.



And I'm saying the Flames are bad because the organizational philosophy is terrible and the Flames will never find success if they keep doing the same things. How can it be coaching if the previous 2 coaches have had basically the same amount of success or even less?

The team couldn't score enough last year, got swept in the playoffs and can't score enough again this year and will miss the playoffs. What is the 'evidence' that Gulutzan is the reason the Flames are going to miss the playoffs this year, and not, say, getting ~10 goals out of ~100+ games from 8 or 9 guys? Lazar has never been a scorer, is it Gulutzan's fault he has 2 goals this year in 57 games, or does that suggest he's probably not playing with good offensive players while being a weak offensive player himself?

The team is bad, man. The team is predictably bad. The team is bad for a predictable reason. The team has been bad for a long time. In 2012-2013, GG was coaching the Dallas Stars and had them produce the exact amount of goals as the Hartley coached Flames did that year. The stars have basically the same year to year record as the Flames. Last year, no playoffs, the year before, round 2, the year before, no playoffs, the year before round 1.

Maybe it's the organization that is the problem? Is it possible for us to agree that GG isn't the worlds greatest coach but that a team with Hathway and Brouwer getting third line minutes that maybe it's also not the worlds greatest team?

I hate to say it, but I think you're right. The coach is always the easy scapegoat. The reality is, it's the players on the roster that really determine the success of the team. And this team doesn't have enough goal scorers, Treliving even said it himself that his biggest fear going into this season was goal scoring. Lo and behold, here we are and lack of goals has been our undoing.

With that said, I think we have the pieces to potentially trade for some help up front. That coupled with some steps forward by guys like Tkachuk, Janko, Bennett (maybe) and we could be a lot better next season.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I hate to say it, but I think you're right. The coach is always the easy scapegoat. The reality is, it's the players on the roster that really determine the success of the team. And this team doesn't have enough goal scorers, Treliving even said it himself that his biggest fear going into this season was goal scoring. Lo and behold, here we are and lack of goals has been our undoing.

With that said, I think we have the pieces to potentially trade for some help up front. That coupled with some steps forward by guys like Tkachuk, Janko, Bennett (maybe) and we could be a lot better next season.

GG sucks, and because of it I am not sure how sucky our lineup is. BUT you’re certainly not wrong

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think the buy out will create more pain than the player given the payout schedule and the coming contracts to core pieces in Tkachuk, Bennett, and Ferland.

With the contract heading into the back nine in October I'd ride it out. His underlying numbers are certainly better this year, even if his production hasn't returned.

Sam Bennett has played only 51 minutes with Brouwer this year.
Mark Jankowski only 17.

Demote him then, because he's part of a leadership group that has failed this team beyond acceptable limits.

The best way to handle Brouwer for all involved is to find someone who will take him at 50% retained. Less long-term pain than a buyout, but gets him away from the team all the same.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Demote him then, because he's part of a leadership group that has failed this team beyond acceptable limits.

The best way to handle Brouwer for all involved is to find someone who will take him at 50% retained. Less long-term pain than a buyout, but gets him away from the team all the same.

Totally agree.

The buyout gets you a four year head ache, and even more so if Brouwer goes Benoit Pouliot on the Flames and puts up 15 goals next season for another franchise while pocketing the Flames cash.

Retained is the way to go

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Totally agree.

The buyout gets you a four year head ache, and even more so if Brouwer goes Benoit Pouliot on the Flames and puts up 15 goals next season for another franchise while pocketing the Flames cash.

Retained is the way to go

I’ll bet Brouwer uses his NMC to prevent any such trade