Treliving needs to start feeling the heat

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Come on man. It was fairly common knowledge he Flames defied several statistics the year before to make playoffs. A drop off was absolutely expected. Treliving wanting to reward the team and build for the future used thst summer to trade picks thst were locked in for a 22 year old former top 10 pick that was absolutely living up to the hype.

I feel like this is the same point ClassicSniper was making.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Dajazz

Wow, hatred. Nah, I just think he's a terrible coach for this team.

The fact that you prefer Russell, well. Yea. Let's just agree to disagree on GG.

Well when Gio went down with his injury, Russell under difficult circumstances was the one to step up from a leadership perspective and lead this team to the playoffs and into the 2nd round.

He'd make an excellent #4 or #5 and wouldn't have cost us a 1st and two 2nds. If our lottery pick ends up with the Isles in a few weeks, this place will go nuts as Hamonic and Stone are significant reasons why this season was such a disappointment and failure.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Come on man. It was fairly common knowledge he Flames defied several statistics the year before to make playoffs. A drop off was absolutely expected. Treliving wanting to reward the team and build for the future used thst summer to trade picks thst were locked in for a 22 year old former top 10 pick that was absolutely living up to the hype.

I get your point but we have all watched this team under Hartley and Gulutzan. Hartley’s teams appeared to have an identity and we knew they were going g to work hard every game. Gulutzan’s team looked great at points and pathetic at others. Which team will show up? Well if it was a massive game we knew it would be the crappy version but other games it was a toss up

Yeah I don't see it the same way. I think Gulutzan's team works just as hard. They just couldn't put the puck in the net enough this season with the bountiful chances they had. Fact is, we were 5th last under Hartley in his last season here and we were worst in the goals allowed territory.

Under Hartley, we weren't a good defensive team. We were also 2nd to last in 12-13 and 8th last in 13-14. Personally, I liked Hartley for his entertaining style, the 14-15 season and all the laughs with the media. But he's a worse coach then Gulutzan and was never going to be the long term answer here and probably the entire league as it doesn't appear that he'll be getting a gig anywhere in the NHL with his outdated and draconian coaching tactics.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Well when Gio went down with his injury, Russell under difficult circumstances was the one to step up from a leadership perspective and lead this team to the playoffs and into the 2nd round.

He'd make an excellent #4 or #5 and wouldn't have cost us a 1st and two 2nds. If our lottery pick ends up with the Isles in a few weeks, this place will go nuts as Hamonic and Stone are significant reasons why this season was such a disappointment and failure.

Russell is paid more than Harmonica. And older. Also he sucks. Have you watched any Oilers games? He's brutal defensively. He makes Bartkowski look like Karlsson.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Ottawa would be looking for a premium young forward in trading Stone, to replace Stone.

And where are they going to get a premium young forward for a forward who is RFA and who they can't afford to offer his market value? They will have to settle for picks and prospects.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Yeah I don't see it the same way. I think Gulutzan's team works just as hard. They just couldn't put the puck in the net enough this season with the bountiful chances they had. Fact is, we were 5th last under Hartley in his last season here and we were worst in the goals allowed territory.

Under Hartley, we weren't a good defensive team. We were also 2nd to last in 12-13 and 8th last in 13-14. Personally, I liked Hartley for his entertaining style, the 14-15 season and all the laughs with the media. But he's a worse coach then Gulutzan and was never going to be the long term answer here and probably the entire league as it doesn't appear that he'll be getting a gig anywhere in the NHL with his outdated and draconian coaching tactics.

Disagree.

Under Hartley, during the 'terrible year' in which he got canned, the Flames allowed 29.0 shots against per game. That was good for 11th BEST in the NHL. They allowed the most goals on those shots, and it is no small wonder as the goalies were incapable of playing with any semblance of decency.

How did this season's Flames measure up? They allowed 31.1 shots against per game, and that was actually good for 10th (shots were up across the board this year). One could argue that they were slightly better this year at suppressing shots (as all things are relative against the other teams in the league year-to-year).

However, look at the talent discrepancy between those two teams. Keep in mind that Smith was WAY better at controlling rebounds than Hiller, Ramo and Ortio (though I think Ramo was decent for a long stretch up until his injury).

I don't think that one can really make an argument that Hartley's system didn't rely on defence, or that they played defence poorly. It doesn't really add up. The CORSI was bad, but who really cares? The CORSI was good this year, and yet here we are.

FYI - here are the remaining years of Hartley's tenure:
2014-15 - the unexpected playoff year- 12th best with 29.2
2013-14 - the rebuild year - 8th best with 28.6

A team that suppresses that many shots doesn't scream 'terrible defensively' to me.

Gulutzan's year he made the playoffs - 2016-18 - they were also 8th best with 28.7 shots against/game.

How then, if the Flames were so good at suppressing shots against, did Hartley's team finish last? Take a look at the SV%:
Ramo .909 - not terrible
Hiller .879 - that's terrible
Ortio .902 - not bad for a young guy
Backstrom .881 (meh - 4 games)

Hiller was the big issue here that year. Flames were actually doing well again when Ramo surged in net.. and then once again everything collapsed when he went down and Hiller was given the net.

Hartley has won the championship in every single league he has ever coached in. EVERY SINGLE ONE. He has also taken two bad, rebuilding teams into the playoffs. How on earth you can make the judgement that Gulutzan is the better coach is beyond me. What evidence do you have to support this? I don't see it.

At any rate, your argument is incorrect that the Flames under Hartley were worse defensively than the Flames under Gulutzan. It was a push at best, and at worst, Hartley was much better defensively since he had way less talent to play with, and had rosters with more in-season turnover (more injuries, more players getting call-ups and getting a look, etc) over their respective years. Not a single goalie that went through the Flames during Hartley's tenure still play in the NHL. That is a huge hint as to how poor goaltending was during his tenure.

It makes little sense to me that people think Gulutzan's system is 'playing the right way' and Hartley's system was 'cheating', when shot suppression (probably the best metric of how a team actually PLAYS defence) doesn't support that notion. Goals against is a combination of how a team plays defence and how good your goalie actually is.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Disagree.

Under Hartley, during the 'terrible year' in which he got canned, the Flames allowed 29.0 shots against per game. That was good for 11th BEST in the NHL. They allowed the most goals on those shots, and it is no small wonder as the goalies were incapable of playing with any semblance of decency.

How did this season's Flames measure up? They allowed 31.1 shots against per game, and that was actually good for 10th (shots were up across the board this year). One could argue that they were slightly better this year at suppressing shots (as all things are relative against the other teams in the league year-to-year).

However, look at the talent discrepancy between those two teams. Keep in mind that Smith was WAY better at controlling rebounds than Hiller, Ramo and Ortio (though I think Ramo was decent for a long stretch up until his injury).

I don't think that one can really make an argument that Hartley's system didn't rely on defence, or that they played defence poorly. It doesn't really add up. The CORSI was bad, but who really cares? The CORSI was good this year, and yet here we are.

FYI - here are the remaining years of Hartley's tenure:
2014-15 - the unexpected playoff year- 12th best with 29.2
2013-14 - the rebuild year - 8th best with 28.6

A team that suppresses that many shots doesn't scream 'terrible defensively' to me.

Gulutzan's year he made the playoffs - 2016-18 - they were also 8th best with 28.7 shots against/game.

How then, if the Flames were so good at suppressing shots against, did Hartley's team finish last? Take a look at the SV%:
Ramo .909 - not terrible
Hiller .879 - that's terrible
Ortio .902 - not bad for a young guy
Backstrom .881 (meh - 4 games)

Hiller was the big issue here that year. Flames were actually doing well again when Ramo surged in net.. and then once again everything collapsed when he went down and Hiller was given the net.

Hartley has won the championship in every single league he has ever coached in. EVERY SINGLE ONE. He has also taken two bad, rebuilding teams into the playoffs. How on earth you can make the judgement that Gulutzan is the better coach is beyond me. What evidence do you have to support this? I don't see it.

At any rate, your argument is incorrect that the Flames under Hartley were worse defensively than the Flames under Gulutzan. It was a push at best, and at worst, Hartley was much better defensively since he had way less talent to play with, and had rosters with more in-season turnover (more injuries, more players getting call-ups and getting a look, etc) over their respective years. Not a single goalie that went through the Flames during Hartley's tenure still play in the NHL. That is a huge hint as to how poor goaltending was during his tenure.

It makes little sense to me that people think Gulutzan's system is 'playing the right way' and Hartley's system was 'cheating', when shot suppression (probably the best metric of how a team actually PLAYS defence) doesn't support that notion. Goals against is a combination of how a team plays defence and how good your goalie actually is.

"your argument is incorrect that the Flames under Hartley were worse defensively than the Flames under Gulutzan?"

My argument is 100% correct based on facts. I would agree that Hiller was absolutely awful in 15-16, but he also played only 26 games that season of Hartley's entire 4 year tenure. You spent a lot of time trying to defend Hartley's defensive system, but all you have to do is look at how many goals this team allowed under him.


12-13 = 29th in GA (despite having Miikka Kiprusoff)
13-14 = 23rd in GA
14-15 = 15th in GA
15-16 = 30th in GA


As you can see, the stats don't lie. 75% of the seasons under Hartley, we were amongst the worst in the league in goals allowed, if not the worst. He played an entertaining system, but we gave up too many goals and that's partly why he was canned and likely why he's still out of work today.

[Bingo]

Another issue in shot counts is the change this season to how they are counted. By all accounts shots are up 10% across the league this season, so 31.1 is really 27.9.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Another issue in shot counts is the change this season to how they are counted. By all accounts shots are up 10% across the league this season, so 31.1 is really 27.9.

Hmmm, I didn't know that. How did they change the way shots are counted?

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

"your argument is incorrect that the Flames under Hartley were worse defensively than the Flames under Gulutzan?"

My argument is 100% correct based on facts. I would agree that Hiller was absolutely awful in 15-16, but he also played only 26 games that season of Hartley's entire 4 year tenure. You spent a lot of time trying to defend Hartley's defensive system, but all you have to do is look at how many goals this team allowed under him.


12-13 = 29th in GA (despite having Miikka Kiprusoff)
13-14 = 23rd in GA
14-15 = 15th in GA
15-16 = 30th in GA


As you can see, the stats don't lie. 75% of the seasons under Hartley, we were amongst the worst in the league in goals allowed, if not the worst. He played an entertaining system, but we gave up too many goals and that's partly why he was canned and likely why he's still out of work today.

Did you even read his post?

He basically said that goals against is a product of both defensive play AND quality of goaltending.

The reason Hartley was canned more than anything, and there are lots of sources that prove this, including the morning show at least once a week is that Hartley was an ####### and a jerk of a human being.

Imagine how bad those Hartley teams would’ve been if GG was coaching them instead... we’d probably have Austin Matthews AND Mcdavid

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Did you even read his post?

He basically said that goals against is a product of both defensive play AND quality of goaltending.

The reason Hartley was canned more than anything, and there are lots of sources that prove this, including the morning show at least once a week is that Hartley was an ####### and a jerk of a human being.

Imagine how bad those Hartley teams would’ve been if GG was coaching them instead... we’d probably have Austin Matthews AND Mcdavid

Aw man, don't say stuff like that.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Did you even read his post?

He basically said that goals against is a product of both defensive play AND quality of goaltending.

The reason Hartley was canned more than anything, and there are lots of sources that prove this, including the morning show at least once a week is that Hartley was an ####### and a jerk of a human being.

Imagine how bad those Hartley teams would’ve been if GG was coaching them instead... we’d probably have Austin Matthews AND Mcdavid

He also provided a lot of points that I was disputing. Blaming Hiller and talent discrepancy are were not valid excuses because 90% of the players were the same. The fact that you think the 15-16 team is so much different from the 16-17 team is ridiculous to me. Hartley's defensive system was just not good enough and in his final press conference, his comment that the team needed to block more shots in order to be better was another fail to a GM like Treliving.

Hartley was definitely a jerk and ran the players through the gauntlet, but it's also the reason why I said that the goals allowed was "partly" why he was canned. There were obviously other reasons. But yeah, I 100% disagree with you that GG would've have had this team around dead last at any point during Hartley's tenure, he's a better coach.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Another issue in shot counts is the change this season to how they are counted. By all accounts shots are up 10% across the league this season, so 31.1 is really 27.9.

Yes, which is why I included the ranking - I think it matters more where you rank year-to-year relative to your peers rather than on pure numbers, as the league does change.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

"your argument is incorrect that the Flames under Hartley were worse defensively than the Flames under Gulutzan?"

My argument is 100% correct based on facts. I would agree that Hiller was absolutely awful in 15-16, but he also played only 26 games that season of Hartley's entire 4 year tenure. You spent a lot of time trying to defend Hartley's defensive system, but all you have to do is look at how many goals this team allowed under him.


12-13 = 29th in GA (despite having Miikka Kiprusoff)
13-14 = 23rd in GA
14-15 = 15th in GA
15-16 = 30th in GA


As you can see, the stats don't lie. 75% of the seasons under Hartley, we were amongst the worst in the league in goals allowed, if not the worst. He played an entertaining system, but we gave up too many goals and that's partly why he was canned and likely why he's still out of work today.

Flames had a poor GAA in 99-00 despite having Grant Fuhr, who is arguably a better goalie than Kipper was.

Since hockey is still a game where scoring goals matter, the Flames GF and GA since 12/13 is below

12/13 GF - 17th, GA 29th - Combined total 46
13/14 GF - 23rd, GA 23rd - Combined total 46
14/15 GF - 8th, GA 15th - Combined total 23
15/16 GF - 11th, GA 30th - combined 41

16/17 GF - 16th, GA 14th - combined 30
17/18 GF - 27th, GA 20 - combined 47

So combined, this year was our worst year out of the 6 years of the rebuild in terms of GF and GA ranking. It was a marginal improvement on the Hartley years in terms of GA though. But I think most fans would say objectively statistically that in year 6 of the rebuild we are at around the same place as years one and two. I think a new coach will kickstart the rebuild in year 7 and give us a legitimate chance to make the playoffs again. Unfortunately GG is an inferior coach to Hartley, thus the precipitous drop in overall play, despite the additions of Elliott, Smith, Stone, Tkachuk, Hamonic and 2 full seasons of Hamilton.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Did you even read his post?

He basically said that goals against is a product of both defensive play AND quality of goaltending.

The reason Hartley was canned more than anything, and there are lots of sources that prove this, including the morning show at least once a week is that Hartley was an ####### and a jerk of a human being.

Imagine how bad those Hartley teams would’ve been if GG was coaching them instead... we’d probably have Austin Matthews AND Mcdavid

This personal stuff on Hartley is crap, secondly who cares? I don't care about these personalities, you have to grade players/coaches on results/performance.

GG is simply not in the same category in that comparison.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Flames had a poor GAA in 99-00 despite having Grant Fuhr, who is arguably a better goalie than Kipper was.

Since hockey is still a game where scoring goals matter, the Flames GF and GA since 12/13 is below

12/13 GF - 17th, GA 29th - Combined total 46
13/14 GF - 23rd, GA 23rd - Combined total 46
14/15 GF - 8th, GA 15th - Combined total 23
15/16 GF - 11th, GA 30th - combined 41

16/17 GF - 16th, GA 14th - combined 30
17/18 GF - 27th, GA 20 - combined 47

So combined, this year was our worst year out of the 6 years of the rebuild in terms of GF and GA ranking. It was a marginal improvement on the Hartley years in terms of GA though. But I think most fans would say objectively that in year 6 of the rebuild we are at around the same place as years one and two. I think a new coach will kickstart the rebuild in year 7 and give us a legitimate chance to make the playoffs again.

Yes we'll likely change coaches like this organization always does. We might make the playoffs or we might not. But as history has shown us, there's a 90%+ chance that we're going to see another 1st round exit or another middling finish. This organization has an obsession for firing coaches, but until we start fielding the right roster, this franchise will be mediocre forever.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

This personal stuff on Hartley is crap, secondly who cares? I don't care about these personalities, you have to grade players/coaches on results/performance.

GG is simply not in the same category in that comparison.

Pretty sure personalities of coaches might play a bit of a role in the results and performance of the team.

Have you ever had a boss you liked working for? And a boss you didn’t like working for?

Who did you find greater job satisfaction and likely better performance for?

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Yes we'll likely change coaches like this organization always does. We might make the playoffs or we might not. But as history has shown us, there's a 90%+ chance that we're going to see another 1st round exit or another middling finish. This organization has an obsession for firing coaches, but until we start fielding the right roster, this franchise will be mediocre forever.

Until we truly invest in a full system makeover, from development coaches to scouts to GM to getting a truly great coach.

Fielding the right roster isn’t as easy as you make it sound...

Changing out he coach is a much easier change

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

"your argument is incorrect that the Flames under Hartley were worse defensively than the Flames under Gulutzan?"

My argument is 100% correct based on facts. I would agree that Hiller was absolutely awful in 15-16, but he also played only 26 games that season of Hartley's entire 4 year tenure. You spent a lot of time trying to defend Hartley's defensive system, but all you have to do is look at how many goals this team allowed under him.


12-13 = 29th in GA (despite having Miikka Kiprusoff)
13-14 = 23rd in GA
14-15 = 15th in GA
15-16 = 30th in GA


As you can see, the stats don't lie. 75% of the seasons under Hartley, we were amongst the worst in the league in goals allowed, if not the worst. He played an entertaining system, but we gave up too many goals and that's partly why he was canned and likely why he's still out of work today.

12-13 - No training camp, and you have an aged team that everyone was screaming needed to be rebuilt. Also, Kipper's last year? Kipper was declining and retired after that season.

13-14 - Uhh... year one of the rebuild?

14-15 - Hartley's best year, no doubt. 15th in goals against. Compared to Gulutzan's best year - 14th best. This was still a rebuilding team, no? This was completely unexpected to most, and won Hartley the Jack Adams.

15-16 - yes, you can't blame everything on goaltending, but you also can't completely disregard it either. Awful, awful year in GA, and it cost Hartley his job in the end. I have no idea why you don't use SA as a better way to determine how good a team is defensively, however. Those teams are a LOT closer together when you measure it that way.

Again, what makes you think Gulutzan is the better coach?

Here is Glen Gulutzan's resume as a head coach:
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p...y.php?pid=2067

Here is Bob Hartley's resume as a head coach:
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p....php?pid=56430

They both coached in 4 different leagues. One of them has never won a championship in any of them. The other has won the championship in every league he has coached in.

Now, when we are rating 'personalities', that good be a totally different story. However, if I am a GM and I want results, I hire Bob Hartley. If I want a player's coach, I don't think I hire Gulutzan now - I will look around for another player's coach that could perhaps deliver some results.

One thing you can't argue is that Bob Hartley achieved more in Calgary - 2nd round AND even won a game against Anaheim, despite having a much worse roster (and having Giordano injured). Heck, watch as he managed his goalies in the playoffs - something that Gulutzan couldn't seem to do properly.

You will find a way to disregard the above. That's fine. Answer me these two questions:

True or False: The Calgary Flames under Bob Hartley overachieved and were fun to watch.

True or False: The Calgary Flames under Glen Gulutzan mostly underachieved and were rather boring to watch.

It really helps set expectations when you factor in the quality of the roster.

Bob Hartley is not some amazing coach that we should all be wishing back. That's not what I am saying. I am saying that Bob Hartley was a much better coach - and was just as good defensively as Gulutzan when you factor in SA (including relative to other teams year-to-year). My big point is that the Calgary Flames should have hired someone else after they fired Hartley rather than Gulutzan. He has not shown himself to be an improvement offensively or defensively, especially when you factor in the quality of the team, and the only place where there has been a noticeable improvement is in CORSI.

I have been blasting the Flames for playing poor defensive hockey starting at the very beginning of the season, and just gave up. This team allows WAY too many odd-man rushes, undefended cross-crease passes, and other prime scoring chances. They are not good defensively - which is why I state that the Flames under Hartley were no worse, and the SA actually support this. Goaltending has masked a lot of problems on this team this year.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

12-13 - No training camp, and you have an aged team that everyone was screaming needed to be rebuilt. Also, Kipper's last year? Kipper was declining and retired after that season.

13-14 - Uhh... year one of the rebuild?

14-15 - Hartley's best year, no doubt. 15th in goals against. Compared to Gulutzan's best year - 14th best. This was still a rebuilding team, no? This was completely unexpected to most, and won Hartley the Jack Adams.

15-16 - yes, you can't blame everything on goaltending, but you also can't completely disregard it either. Awful, awful year in GA, and it cost Hartley his job in the end. I have no idea why you don't use SA as a better way to determine how good a team is defensively, however. Those teams are a LOT closer together when you measure it that way.

Again, what makes you think Gulutzan is the better coach?

Here is Glen Gulutzan's resume as a head coach:
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p...y.php?pid=2067

Here is Bob Hartley's resume as a head coach:
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p....php?pid=56430

They both coached in 4 different leagues. One of them has never won a championship in any of them. The other has won the championship in every league he has coached in.

Now, when we are rating 'personalities', that good be a totally different story. However, if I am a GM and I want results, I hire Bob Hartley. If I want a player's coach, I don't think I hire Gulutzan now - I will look around for another player's coach that could perhaps deliver some results.

One thing you can't argue is that Bob Hartley achieved more in Calgary - 2nd round AND even won a game against Anaheim, despite having a much worse roster (and having Giordano injured). Heck, watch as he managed his goalies in the playoffs - something that Gulutzan couldn't seem to do properly.

You will find a way to disregard the above. That's fine. Answer me these two questions:

True or False: The Calgary Flames under Bob Hartley overachieved and were fun to watch.

True or False: The Calgary Flames under Glen Gulutzan mostly underachieved and were rather boring to watch.

It really helps set expectations when you factor in the quality of the roster.

Bob Hartley is not some amazing coach that we should all be wishing back. That's not what I am saying. I am saying that Bob Hartley was a much better coach - and was just as good defensively as Gulutzan when you factor in SA (including relative to other teams year-to-year). My big point is that the Calgary Flames should have hired someone else after they fired Hartley rather than Gulutzan. He has not shown himself to be an improvement offensively or defensively, especially when you factor in the quality of the team, and the only place where there has been a noticeable improvement is in CORSI.

I have been blasting the Flames for playing poor defensive hockey starting at the very beginning of the season, and just gave up. This team allows WAY too many odd-man rushes, undefended cross-crease passes, and other prime scoring chances. They are not good defensively - which is why I state that the Flames under Hartley were no worse, and the SA actually support this. Goaltending has masked a lot of problems on this team this year.

We definitely do not see eye to eye on virtually everything here. It's basically too much, so I won't even bother to do so because I don't have the time to get into it.

But to your main questions you asked. Why do I use goals allowed instead of shots allowed? Well isn't that one of the main statistics that actually matters in regards to wins and losses? Also, shots allowed doesn't take into account the quality of the shot either which is important. Hartley's system also called for a lot of shot blocking as well, so shots allowed probably isn't the most accurate indicator. Scoring chances allowed probably would be more accurate than anything.

Bob Hartley's team definitely overachieved...for 1 season. We had 1 very fun, but very lucky season in 14-15 and in a lot of ways, we were equally unlucky this season. I'm not going to use overachieving and underachieving as the barometer of good coaching because the sample size is too small.

Hartley has the hardware, but he's not a coach of today's NHL. That's probably why you never hear his name anymore. The way he treats his players, his results just don't justify the means.

I know you're using goaltending a lot for justification as well, but it's not like Brian Elliott and Chad Johnson were Vezina candidates last season. They were pretty bad at times and the team actually bailed out the goaltenders. It took the Flames about a month to adjust to GG's system last season, but once they did, they were a top 5 defensive team last season right up there with the Ducks, Capitals and etc.