Flames year end grades

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Are you suggesting that Hamilton plays the big tough to play against d-man role? The guy that will bang with Lucic and Wheeler or Perry? First guy to cross check the crease crasher?
.

Such things are a very narrow way to evaluate a dman.

[GreenLantern2814]

Gaudreau: A+. Challenged for the Art Ross for most of the year. The only reason to watch the team down the stretch. Star players under contract for 4 more years at under $7M have a ton of value now that McDavid, Eichel (And soon Matthews) will be making $12M+. Rather than trade Johnny, I think the Flames should take advantage of Monahan and Gaudreau combining to make less than $14M to get another star player, by either trade or Tavares.

Tkachuk: A+. Future captain. The team wasn't the same when he wasn't on the ice. Does so many little things that impress. No team can win the Stanley Cup with a dud wearing #19 - the Flames have an elite 19 on their hands, and he's gonna get paid.

Monahan: A-. Played through four major injuries. Was on Pace to be a 40G PPG player at one point in the year. Dude is inarguably a #1C in the NHL. Don't give me nonsense about how he's only a product of Gaudreau. Show me another elite player that plays with nobodies and still puts up numbers, and I'll show you Sid. Monahan thinks the game nearly as well as Gaudreau does - That's why they work well together. All Monahan has done as a pro is be better every year. As long as he stays healthy, he is going to be a monster for at least the next five years.

Giordano: B+. Gio is not the reason this team didn't make the playoffs. His numbers are right in line with the year before, and if we get this type of play out of Gio for three of the next five years, I think we'll all be very happy with that contract. He is the best defenseman on this team until someone proves otherwise.

Hamilton: B+. If only our idiot head coach had considered putting Dougie on the first PP before January. 17 goals, 44 points, playing in all situations. Every season in Calgary has been better than his career best in Boston. Oh and he's 24. Let's trade him.

Backlund: B-. Backlund started strong. It seemed as though his contract discussions weighed on him, and he didn't get the second wind I thought he would after his extension. But I'm not stressing about Backlund - why bother, he's here another 5 years, so I've gotta believe the last three months are not as indicative as the last three years. He's still on the right side of 30, and I don't think he's going to be the whipping boy of anyone with a brain. Certainly not the reason we're not in the playoffs.

Ferland: C+. A 20/20 season for Ferly, playing mostly with the top line. It's tough, because a 16-point improvement over a career year is impressive, but Ferland should've finished the year with 30 goals. He had 21. February 1, Ferland scored his 20th goal. He scored 21 on March 16. I said before the season, Ferland is a complimentary piece. He is not the straw that stirs the drink. What makes him effective is, unfortunately, what makes him inconsistent - nobody can sustain Ferland v Vancouver levels over an 82 game schedule, and when he's not being carried by Johnny and Sean, he's a 20-30 point physical forward. Sell high.

Brodie: C-. So glad we gave up a 1st, a 2nd, and another 2nd for someone to play with Brodie, only to watch the guy have an even worse year than 2017. It's frustrating, because when Brodie is on, he can completely control the game from the back end. Whoever coaches this team next needs to understand that Brodie needs to be leading the rush every shift. He needs to be jumping into the play and creating odd man rushes. He has been Bouwmeester'd by Gulutzan since Glen's arrival, and I hope it stops.

Bennett: D-. Not an NHL centre. Anyone who mentions using Sam Bennett as a centre during their interview process should be disqualified. He's not even that good a winger. I would've been certain, prior to this year, that if you simply announced in July Bennett was going to be the #1RW, that would've solved a great many problems. Now, I will happily trade him to recoup a 2nd round pick. I do not see what he brings to the table that makes him worth keeping around. He never stops on pucks, he does these lazy fly-bys and reaches back to try and corral pucks that would be on his tape if he stopped where he was. Sam, if your favorite player growing up was Doug Gilmour, and you get drafted by the Flames, you pick 39.

Jankowski: C. I have been a fan of Janko since the day we picked him. After waiting five years, I'm still a fan. He's got the frame and reach you love in a centre, he's got good vision, good hands, you can see the defensive awareness. But he's also a rookie, who spent 4 years in college. Clearly hit a wall, and will need a good summer of training. I recommend he binge Dragon Ball Super for motivation. Time will tell if he is able to supplant Backlund as the #2C - I don't think it's out of the question in the next three years. Thanks, Feaster.

Frolik: C-. Really disappointing season from Frolik. Thought he'd be energized playing with Jagr - wasn't. Wasn't nearly as effective as the year before. One thing that's concerning about Frolik, when he gets injured mid-season, he has trouble getting his year back on track. He got hurt year 1 and wasn't great, and wasn't the same after his injury this year. He's only under contract for 2 more years, and I do view Frolik as the ideal sort of free agent acquisition - a 2nd/3rd line guy who could play on the top line in a pinch, but is generally just a solid pro hockey player. Get it together, Fro.

Brouwer: D-. To the sun with you. A Brouwer buyout comes with a cap hit of $1.5 for 4 years. Either trade him with 50% retained or buy him out. He's a waste of a roster spot, and his intangibles are VASTLY overrated. Nobody in that room cares what ol' Birdcage Brouwer has to say. He was invisible against a physical Anaheim team last year, and now that his jaw has been Emelin'd, surely the days of him playing rough and tumble in the corners are over. He's got a ring and $8M more coming his way, why mess that up with an injury. GTFO.

Hathaway: C. Garnett Hathaway appeared in 59 games, registering 4 goals, 9 assists, and accruing 88 minutes in penalties. He finishes 2017-18 with a laudable +3 rating.

Matt Stajan: D. Matt Stajan has received in excess of $26.5M from the Calgary Flames since 2010. That money has purchased one 10+ goal season, and 56 goals total. You may be thinking "Well, Staj is a playmaker more than a shooter..." - wrong. $26.5M has purchased one 20+ assist season. 118 total. But he did score that goal against the Canucks. So there's that.

Curtiz Lazar: D-. Curtis Lazar wishes he could produce like Matt Stajan. But everyone in the media tells me he's a nice guy.

Hamonic: B-. He is what he is. I don't think he's a useless player, but he ain't exactly Vlasic. He's a black hole offensively, and I eagerly await AC's highlight package of bone crushing hits that don't exist.

Stone: B-. I actually really like Stone. I know I'm in the minority, but Stone is a big guy who can break up the cycle down low. He seals guys up against the boards and that's it. He's an excellent PK guy, and I don't see why we didn't just roll with Brodie/Stone on the 2nd pair. I think having Stone and Hamonic does allow you to trade Brodie for scoring help, but in an ideal world, I would trade those two and keep Brodie. Brodie can control the game - Stone and Hamonic can't.

Versteeg: D+. Versteeg wasn't in the lineup much, and when he was, he wasn't very impactful. But he did rent a place in my neighborhood last year, and he played his junior in Lethbridge where I went to school. Still, D+ and thanks for all the fish.

Nick Shore: Letter. A man named Nick Shore played hockey games for the Flames this year. He was on pace to outproduce Curtis Lazar.

Bartkowski: Lol.

Kulak: C+. He's the 6th defenseman on the 18th best team in the NHL. Good for him. Don't see the Brodie qualities some have alluded to for years.

Foo: C. Got into a couple games late, scored a few goals. Skating isn't NHL level, and will need to see a lot of improvement before I start to view this player as a legit threat to stick.

Glass: B-. Glad he fought Lucic. Otherwise, why do we not have a player in the farm system who can do Tanner Glass things?

Andersson: Letter. I'll refrain from commenting much on Andersson since I didn't watch the majority of games he got into. But his skating is a concern; he doesn't seem fast enough to handle top-6 forwards.

Hrivik: More like Marek Whorivik, amirite?

Smith: B+. For 50 games, I remembered what it was like to have Kipper in the cage every night. Smith made all the saves he should've made, plus four or five he shouldn't. That's a goalie. His puckhandling was a revelation; I've wanted a goalie on my team like that since I was seven. He never recovered from his injury, and by the time he came back, things had spiralled out of control. If you're blaming this season on Smith, give your head a shake.

Rittich: B. Didn't grab the mail when Smith got hurt, but prior to that was showing a lot of good things. His rebound control is excellent, he tracks the puck well, and we'll see how he responds next year. But there's a lot to like in this player - Kipper was 27 when he got to Calgary. Smith himself didn't become a starter until he was 29, three years after he was traded for Brad Richards, on another team. Goalies are weird.

Gillies: B. Same as Rittich, I saw a lot I liked, but this is a young goalie and they take time. Keep at it.

Coaches: F. No vision, no ability to adapt, poor gameplans, ridiculous adherence to systems, and were consistently embarrassed by Connor McDavid. Never once tried Tkachuk with Monahan and Gaudreau, and took until Christmas to use their most offensively talented defenseman on the 1st PP. Alain Vingeault ASAFP, please.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Yes, Vancouver. They wanted him to reach UFA status badly and they have a ton of cap space to include him. This was actually reported recently.

Perhaps you should check your facts before making sweeping statements like that one. I'm betting Vancouver isn't the only team that would have significant interest in Backlund, even at his new salary.

facts? We are dealing with opinion. Do you know for a fact that Vancouver would be interested in Backlund? If they have a choice for Statsny for the same money? (opinion, not fact)

Do the Canucks need another Brandon Sutter? to go with Horvat ... Where do they play Gaudette ( their version of Gaudreau that plays centre) or Elias Pettersson (#5 overall last year leading scorer in SHL) If the Flames had either of these prospects in their system and so close to being in the NHL I would have wanted to trade Backlund for a late first when that deal was possible (again opinion)



You follow the Panthers closely.... where would Backlund fit in with them?

Trocheck
Barkov
Bjugstad
McCann


Backlund's 5.35 x 6 is more than all but Barkov's 5.9M contract

I think I would be pleased from a Flames prospective for a 1 to 1 trade for each of the Panthers centres.. You?

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Here are my grades.

Backlund, Mikael: B-
He gets crapped on too much for not producing as much, but his goal totals dropped because his shooting percentage tanked this year compared to his career average. He also wasn't quite as good defensively this year, but he still did an admirable job of matching up against the top lines and being an effective 2-way center.

Bartkowski, Matt: C-
Not horrible, which is all you can really ask for. He warmed the bench well and played alright when called upon. Still a horrible turnover machine.

Bennett, Sam: C-
I keep waiting for the real Sam Bennett to stand up. I guess I'm going to have to wait another year. Extremely inconsistent. Often makes poor decisions or lazy plays, and takes bad penalties in the offensive zone. Still a ways away from being a good NHLer.

Brodie, T.J.: C+
I think he takes too much heat based on the expectations fans have for him. I thought he had an ok year at both ends of the ice. He left his partner out to dry far too many times to count, and his turnovers were of the ugly variety for stretches during the season.

Brouwer, Troy: D+
The 2nd down offensive year in a row even though he was given plenty of PP time. Still, he did a decent job defensively and on the PK. I think he knows how to play hockey, but he just wasn't very effective this year.

Ferland, Micheal: B-
Inconsistency is just part of who Ferland is. When he's hot he's unstoppable, but when he's not he's forgettable. This is not uncommon with young power forwards. I still think he can be a 25-30 goal scorer year in and year out if he fixes his consistency.

Frolik, Michael: C-
I didn't like much of Frolik's game this year. Weak offensively and not nearly as effective defensively. He didn't skate as well as he did last year, so I wonder if there was a lingering injury or something. He's a much smarter player than what he showed this year.

Gaudreau, Johnny: A
He did a great job offensively all year, but the PP struggled mightily even with him on it all the time. I think he could have done more to help the PP. Not terrible defensively, but he was a little lazy at times.

Giordano, Mark: A
Not much more you can ask for from the aging captain, except perhaps leadership in the room. He did everything he could on the ice to help the team win, but I think he could have done more off the ice to get the team motivated for big games.

Glass, Tanner: F
After a strong camp he didn't play at that same level to start the year. Went down to Stockton and came back to get his face punched in. The less said about his season the better.

Hamilton, Dougie: B
Great offensive production but with occasional defensive lapses that make you cringe. He didn't seem to get up for big games which bothers me.

Hamonic, Travis: B+
Such a strong defender, he really covered up for Brodie quite a bit throughout the year. He struggled to adjust at first, but his game was really strong for most of the season. I wanted to see just a little more offensive creativity from him, but that could be due to the coaches' system.

Hathaway, Garnet: D+
Pretty underwhelming for most of the year. His game is about energy and agitation, and I found that he brought very little of that this year. He thought he'd become a goalscorer, but soon found out his hands aren't good enough at the NHL level to do that. I wouldn't be crushed if he wasn't on the team next year.

Jagr, Jaromir: C-
Father time and the injury bug caught up with JJ. He had some moments offensively that made you think he might be a guy that provided the team with some good offensive depth. Then the injuries came and never went away, cutting his season short. It's a bummer.

Jankowski, Mark: B+
He'd get a higher grade if he didn't have a stretch where his play was relatively poor at both ends of the ice. He transitioned well to the NHL where he mostly looked good both offensively and defensively. Consistency is key to his success moving forward. He has the skills and the brain for the game.

Kulak, Brett: A-
Went from a fringe player to a solid 3rd pairing defenseman who can step up to the 2nd pairing when needed. He became more creative offensively throughout the year and made smart play after smart play in his own zone. He really took a step forward this year.

Lazar, Curtis: C+
I like his game overall, but he needs to work on his shooting skills. He's a smart player with good wheels and strong defensive acumen. The rest will come in time I hope.

Monahan, Sean: A
I can't fault him for struggling with so many injuries. There was a time when he was on pace for 40 goals and 80 points. He battled for as long as he could, but to no avail. Can't help it if he's injured.

Nick Shore: B-
Small sample size, but I like Shore's overall game. He needs to work on his shooting just like lazar, but I could see them as a duo on the 4th line going into next year.

Smith, Mike: B+
I can't fault his desire to win, but his play was lackluster down the stretch, and especially at home. On the road, he was a beast, and gave us a great road record this year. If he dialed back his competitiveness just a little he'd be fine.

Stajan, Matt: C-
The early part of this season it looked like Stajan was destined for the minors. he turned it around halfway through to be a passable 4th line center, but he still didn't add much overall to the team. I love the guy, but he just doesn't have it anymore.

Stone, Michael: C+
Just an ok year from Stone. He's capable of more offense, but he's gotta start hitting the net with his shot. Defensively he was fine, but nothing exceptional considering the weaker opposition he was playing against.

Tkachuk, Matthew - A+
One of the few guys who was a difference maker every single night. Vastly improved offense and a clear desire to help his team win. Can't fault him for anything.

Versteeg, Kris: D
Simply wasn't part of the solution at any point this year.

Rittich, David: B+
He struggled at times, but you should expect that from a rookie NHL goaltender. He solidified the backup job for the first time in nearly forever. It feels good to have a guy that battles hard every game as the backup.

Coaching Staff: F
Simply didn't get enough performance out of this roster. Catastrophic failure of the power play. Nothing more needs to be said.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

facts? We are dealing with opinion. Do you know for a fact that Vancouver would be interested in Backlund? If they have a choice for Statsny for the same money? (opinion, not fact)

Do the Canucks need another Brandon Sutter? to go with Horvat ... Where do they play Gaudette ( their version of Gaudreau that plays centre) or Elias Pettersson (#5 overall last year leading scorer in SHL) If the Flames had either of these prospects in their system and so close to being in the NHL I would have wanted to trade Backlund for a late first when that deal was possible (again opinion)



You follow the Panthers closely.... where would Backlund fit in with them?

Trocheck
Barkov
Bjugstad
McCann


Backlund's 5.35 x 6 is more than all but Barkov's 5.9M contract

I think I would be pleased from a Flames prospective for a 1 to 1 trade for each of the Panthers centres.. You?

First of all, Bjugstad plays the wing almost exclusively now. Barkov is definitely the #1 center over Trocheck.

Barkov's deal was as a RFA a few years ago whereas Backlund's is a UFA this year....context is important.

And no, I wouldn't think that the Panthers have a particular interest in Backlund because center is the strongest position in the organization. But that's a strawman argument that you love to make. It's a good thing I never mentioned the Panthers.

As for Vancouver, from Friedman's 30 thoughts:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...in-retirement/

2. All of a sudden, Vancouver has more than $20 million to play with for 2018–19. Word is they were very interested in Mikael Backlund before Calgary re-signed him.

It's not opinion if a hockey insider who is known for getting his facts right reported on their interest. Take it or leave it.

BTW, Gaudette is just like Gaudreau now? LOL.

[GordonBlue]

for those who gave Gaudreau an A+, shouldn't he lose some ranking for his part in a bad powerplay and also for disappearing during the stretch drive?

sure there were injuries, but he went from top 10 all year and sometimes top 5 in scoring, and then plummeted.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

...

No grade for Monahan?

I can't find much to disagree with in New Era's list for the only exception that he ranks Hamonic far too low. Once he got his footing he was quite solid all year.

It is always interesting to see people's takes on these, and I appreciate the discussion generated, but I also really question how fruitful it is to respond to the OP and his characteristically inflammatory opinions. Given his posting history, I don't believe he is honestly interested in any actual dialogue.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

for those who gave Gaudreau an A+, shouldn't he lose some ranking for his part in a bad powerplay and also for disappearing during the stretch drive?

sure there were injuries, but he went from top 10 all year and sometimes top 5 in scoring, and then plummeted.

I think the play of both Ferland and Gaudreau suffered substantially in the latter part of the season with Monahan's injury. It is difficult to assess them as such.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Such things are a very narrow way to evaluate a dman.

taken out of context.... that is what the big elite D-men do.

The Flames would be better if they had one. Hamilton is big but since he doesn't play big he needs to be evaluated against the small skilled d-men that score a lot, set up plays and can skate the puck through the neutral zone to beat the clogging up the middle.

Small good defensemen have to play these guys quicker, read the plays better and have better positioning.

Hamilton is not that good at quickness, reading the play and positioning.

You seem to suggest that he be evaluated primarily on his scoring goals and possibly his ability to be on the ice with Gio when Gio is working against the other teams best forwards.

[troutman]

Grades are inadequate in communicating learning. The players should report on their growth in the competencies areas - like curiosity, cooperation, organization, motivation or social responsibility.

[Toonage]

I give myself an A for sitting through this season.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No grade for Monahan?

I can't find much to disagree with in New Era's list for the only exception that he ranks Hamonic far too low. Once he got his footing he was quite solid all year.

It is always interesting to see people's takes on these, and I appreciate the discussion generated, but I also really question how fruitful it is to respond to the OP and his characteristically inflammatory opinions. Given his posting history, I don't believe he is honestly interested in any actual dialogue.

nice personal attack... first one on this thread. Are you baiting me?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I can't find much to disagree with in New Era's list for the only exception that he ranks Hamonic far too low. Once he got his footing he was quite solid all year.

Hamonic's grade is greatly influenced by his partner. Sucks, but that's what happens when you have the team project that influences your grade so much. The second pair was an unmitigated disaster this past season.

[Jason14h]

I will say, for a team that finished 20th, there are way to many A's and B's and not enough D's (Assuming C is played to expectations)

Frolik, Backlund, Brodie, Bennett, Brouwer, Hamonic, and everyone who stepped on the ice as the 4th line are all D's or worst to me. They all failed to live up to their required expectations this year.

(I might give Backlund and Hamonic a C-)

Yes coaching was terrible, and may have impacted these players, but at the end of the day their performance is their responsibility.

Backlund 14 goals, minus 21, and people are giving B's?

Hamonic 1 goal, 11 points, -9 and people are giving B's?

How anyone can think these 2 outperformed their expectations to any degree confuses me.

We were a very bad team this year, and outside a select few players (JG, Tkachuk, Gio, Hamilton, 1st half Monahan) almost everyone was a C or worst.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

nice personal attack... first one on this thread. Are you baiting me?

Doubt it. Textcritic is a master-baiter. If he was baiting you, you would know it.

Don't see the personal attack either.

[bubbsy]

Gaudreau - A

Monahan - b+ (career year in spite of the injuries)

Ferland - B- (not a first liner but played well, but had a brutal last third or so of the season. Also, be mean and hit somebody already!)

Tkachuk - B+ (everything you could ask for, had some discipline issues but is learning)

Backlund - D+ - didn't create offensively, wasn't defensively strong, took dumb penalties to boot. Dumb dumb contract. My guess: Will be a cp whipping boy by Nov.

Frolik - C - taking a burns shot to the face doesn't help you find your game.

Bennett - C-

Jankowski - b- - had good stretches and bad ones, which is to be expected year 1

Hathaway - b - umm ok spurts... But how the hell is he the best option for the 3rd line?? He's a 12/13th forward on most nhl teams

Lazar - forget the draft position. Forget the acquisition cost. He's fast, grinds, and cheap. I totally see an acceptable and effective 4th liner there.

Stajan - C

Brouwer -d - would I be more upset if 5he coaching staff is back or Brouwer? Hmm.....

Gio - A-

Hamilton - b - goal scoring = good. Defence, give a f meter, brotherly love = meh

Brodie - F - dude is scared to shoot the puck to the point it is a frigin joke. A offensive dman who lacks any kind of offensive instincts whatsoever. Can't wait till he gone.

Hamonic - C - slow, play it off the glass defensive dman. Looked terrible 2/3s of the year. Playing with Brodie didn't help. He will forever be associated to the acquisition cost, and no way he will ever live up to the lottery 1st round + 2 x 2nd round picks. Stupid move by flames mgmt

Kulak - b- - meh.... Quietly, he barely even really played. Every time I perused the game sheet he played about 10 or so mins. Don't think coaches ever really trusted him.

Stone - C+

Smith - b- - great start, ok middle, injured, bad. Are we all being ignorant to assume the Smith of the start of the year can be assumed to be the level of quality next year??

Rittich - b- - awesome when in the role of backup. Pure choke job when given the reigns.

Gillies - f+ - it's bad when ur goalie can't handle dump ins from the red line that happen to be on net

Coaches - F- - Hamilton/gio off a weak pp for half the year, not breaking up 2nd pairing when struggles past 15 games, not breaking up 3m line despite depth scoring issues all year, Brouwer getting pp, pk time. 4th line and 3rd pairing utilization in key moments. Inability to get inspired starts. Terrible home record.

GM - F - hamonic trade is a shade better than the hall/Larsson deal. Lack was a dumb decision. Jankowski not making the team is a dumb decision. Spending high end assets on d when everyone including urself thought forward depth was an issue. Imagine what a package of this year's lottery 1st+this year's 2nd+next year's 2nd could land a team on draft day. Treliving looks about as leafs Burke. Idiotic incompetence in reading the quality of ur own frigin team. I like treliving but I'd be just fine in seeing him canned. He has absolutely zero read on his own team and the asset quality there. The Backlund signing just another classic example.

Ownership - in the words of DMX 'eat a d'. Cleveland brown level results for 30 years now yet want hard working Calgarians in a economic recession/depression state to pony up funds?!? Idiots.

Me - F-- - another year, another waste of time where my time, money, energy could have been so much better invested elsewhere.

Finally, CP + fan 960 morning show - A - thank you for being a venting space to contribute and listen
....

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No grade for Monahan?

I can't find much to disagree with in New Era's list for the only exception that he ranks Hamonic far too low. Once he got his footing he was quite solid all year.

It is always interesting to see people's takes on these, and I appreciate the discussion generated, but I also really question how fruitful it is to respond to the OP and his characteristically inflammatory opinions. Given his posting history, I don't believe he is honestly interested in any actual dialogue.

I forgot Monahan, my bad. He's there now.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

...We were a very bad team this year, and outside a select few players (JG, Tkachuk, Gio, Hamilton, 1st half Monahan) almost everyone was a C or worst.

This raises a number of questions for me:

The obvious one is whether players ought to be graded purely on results or expectations. I lean more to the former, largely because individual players can only control so much, and with all the contributing factors which will affect a player's performance—New Era's observation of how Brodie's own performance is reflected on Hamonic is a case in point—it is far too difficult to get any kind of tangible read on the achievability of expectations from a distance.

Second, what is an "average" NHL team? In a league in which 49% of teams make the playoffs, then "average" suggests that the playoff bubble is the measure. But then again, with the level of parity in the league, and with how narrow the margin is between teams clustered around the centre I also think it is fair to suggest that there are a lot more good NHL teams than bad ones. I reject the notion that the Flames are a "bad" team considering how long they were in contention for a division playoff berth—they certainly are not a "very bad team."

I think at worst as of today the Flames are "average," and as such it seems pretty reasonable to see a few "B's" and lots of "C's" being awarded to players.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

We were a very bad team this year, and outside a select few players (JG, Tkachuk, Gio, Hamilton, 1st half Monahan) almost everyone was a C or worst.

This is it. The star players were all full value for money. Everyone else was dreck.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This raises a number of questions for me:

The obvious one is whether players ought to be graded purely on results or expectations. I lean more to the former, largely because individual players can only control so much, and with all the contributing factors which will affect a player's performance—New Era's observation of how Brodie's own performance is reflected on Hamonic is a case in point—it is far too difficult to get any kind of tangible read on the achievability of expectations from a distance.

Second, what is an "average" NHL team? In a league in which 49% of teams make the playoffs, then "average" suggests that the playoff bubble is the measure. But then again, with the level of parity in the league, and with how narrow the margin is between teams clustered around the centre I also think it is fair to suggest that there are a lot more good NHL teams than bad ones. I reject the notion that the Flames are a "bad" team considering how long they were in contention for a division playoff berth—they certainly are not a "very bad team."

I think at worst as of today the Flames are "average," and as such it seems pretty reasonable to see a few "B's" and lots of "C's" being awarded to players.

I just can't agree they were an average team, and certainly not "at worst they are average."

They finished 20th. Their goal differential was 8th worst (And that is with the bonus final game 7-1 win). Their special teams were dreadful.

The 1st half of the season they had basically no injuries, great goaltending, and were battling for a playoff spot. A team like Anaheim had their entire team injured, and were right there with us.

Look at it a different way: Which teams underperformed more or as much then the Flames and could use the same argument they are not a 'bad' team?

Edmonton
Ottawa
Chicago
NYR
Dallas
Maybe Montreal

Now if the contention is all of those are also average teams, and all playoff teams are at least average, then I guess I can get behind the Flames being an average team.

We are better then at least 6 teams in the league for sure

For me at best they are an above average team that coach killed, and at worst they are one of the worst 10 franchises in the NHL, with no picks, and aging goaltender, and their stars all coming off career years....