06-01-2018, 08:05 PM
|
#41
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemenz
Yes he was a tire fire before he met Gio.
|
Ha! Yeah. If anything he was making that bum Chara look good.
|
|
|
06-01-2018, 08:48 PM
|
#42
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
But the players have to play! Coaching doesnt matter!
Lets not gloss over the fact that the Calgary Flames under Gulutzan's tenure were wildly unpredictably other than the fact that they were generally unprepared to actually do their jobs and that said tenure was punctuated by streaks.
Starting with losing streaks, eventually winning streaks and then finishing off with sensational losing streaks to make the initial losing streaks look like an evening in the sun.
Consistently inconsistent.
|
absolutely, there were stretches where Calgary looked great and then streaks were calgary looked awful.
the fact remains that Calgary was in the playoff until Smith got injured and they really played poorly after that injury... but that lends itself to the characterization by many in the media that Calgary was a 'fragile' teams. 22 occasions during the year, Calgary allow two goals in two minutes....almost like they had lost confidence and were on their heels...Fragile was fitting imo...
my comment was directed to those that uniformly started calgary was awful during the regular season, which is not the case at all... if smith wasn't injured, there was every reason to believe that they would have remained in the race until the bitter end.
so inconsistent? Absolutely. "Awful"? No.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to oldschoolcalgary For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-01-2018, 10:12 PM
|
#43
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keselke
I am really glad our head coach thinks we have a good team
....what else would he possibly say, do people actually take anything away from comments like these
"SEE I told you we had a good team!!"
|
You're right, he should have said we sucked.
Seriously, isn't it tiring being this negative all the time? How do some of you guys do this?
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to N-E-B For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-02-2018, 12:21 AM
|
#44
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by direwolf
Under the Gulutzan system, yes, they were. But how 'bout we wait and see what Peters can do with this team before we write them off as terrible. We have a solid core here that really flourished under Hartley who implemented a system that actually utilized their strengths. We know they have it in them to be a creative, fast, and exciting team. Hopefully they can regain some of that magic under this new coaching staff.
|
Agree, I don't know if were ever terrible, slow, un-creative or one dimensional, but under the Gulutzan system they had to think to much and not just play to their own natural strengths, it's hard to play the speed game and keep your feet moving when your wondering if your out of position, Gulutzan's system confused players and if you think too much it slows you down, particularly at center ice when they got caught on line changes, it was like the puck was a grenade and they couldn't wait to give it away, almost like each line had a different system.
I'm not a big fan of this hire but i'm a huge fan of the fire
|
|
|
06-02-2018, 01:58 AM
|
#45
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary
absolutely, there were stretches where Calgary looked great and then streaks were calgary looked awful.
the fact remains that Calgary was in the playoff until Smith got injured and they really played poorly after that injury... but that lends itself to the characterization by many in the media that Calgary was a 'fragile' teams. 22 occasions during the year, Calgary allow two goals in two minutes....almost like they had lost confidence and were on their heels...Fragile was fitting imo...
my comment was directed to those that uniformly started calgary was awful during the regular season, which is not the case at all... if smith wasn't injured, there was every reason to believe that they would have remained in the race until the bitter end.
so inconsistent? Absolutely. "Awful"? No.
|
Just a remark on goaltending in the regular season.
When Fleury was hurt, Vegas won no matter what goaltender was in net. That is what good teams should be able to do.
If the Flames couldn’t win without Smith, they had other problems.
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-02-2018, 08:19 AM
|
#46
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by theslymonkey
The most ridiculous part of this complaint is the fact that the Flames have 3 good RHD which are hard to find. So moving Brodie to the right side would leave the left side thin, put a LHD on his wrong side and put a RHD on his wrong side.
Brodie isn't better on the right side, he's better with Gio, but so is everyone...
|
Are there any good teams that have this 3 RHD obsession?
Not Vegas
Not Washington
Not Tampa
Not Nashville
Most teams try to find the best 6 dmen and play them wherever. Now for the Flames, especially with Rasmus coming up may always have 3 RHD in their top 6, but it is certainly not a pre-requisite for NHL success.
If some other team really wants RHD and is willing to pay a good price for it, I would have no problem moving Hamonic and Stone and having 2 RHD next year.
Right dmen having to be right handed is one of GG's worst ideas, no other decent team has such a rigid position on this irrelevant criteria.
|
|
|
06-02-2018, 08:29 AM
|
#47
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sec206
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aarongavey
Are there any good teams that have this 3 RHD obsession?
Not Vegas
Not Washington
Not Tampa
Not Nashville
Most teams try to find the best 6 dmen and play them wherever. Now for the Flames, especially with Rasmus coming up may always have 3 RHD in their top 6, but it is certainly not a pre-requisite for NHL success.
If some other team really wants RHD and is willing to pay a good price for it, I would have no problem moving Hamonic and Stone and having 2 RHD next year.
Right dmen having to be right handed is one of GG's worst ideas, no other decent team has such a rigid position on this irrelevant criteria.
|
Not true. Team Canada's D was built around this exact premise. Babcock was very dedicated to coaching this philosophy. I'm sure I could get a lot of coaches to agree if I had the chance to ask them.
I know we've had this discussion here a while back, but playing D on your wrong side severely hampers your effectiveness other than one timers on the PP. It's not worth rehashing it again, but in general, most coaches want their D on their proper sides if possible. The issue is that RHD are more rare and teams have to move LHD to the right side because they just don't have the personal available on the team.
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
Last edited by theslymonkey; 06-02-2018 at 08:57 AM.
|
|
|
06-02-2018, 08:53 AM
|
#48
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by theslymonkey
Not true. Team Canada's D was built around this exact premise. Babcock was very dedicated to coaching this philosophy. I'm sure I could get a lot of coaches to agree if I had the chance to ask them.
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
|
Except it is true for every single team I cited.
In Toronto Babcock went with 4 LHD and 2 RHD all playoffs, Carrick (a RHD) was healthy scratched the entire playoffs, so it does not appear like Babcock is very committed to 3 RHD. It appears that he is more committed to having the best 6 dmen on the ice, regardless of whether they shoot left or right.
So I guess you can add Babcock to the list of indifferent coaches in regards to 3 RHD.
Last edited by Aarongavey; 06-02-2018 at 08:55 AM.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aarongavey For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-02-2018, 08:56 AM
|
#49
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sec206
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aarongavey
Except it is true for every single team I cited.
In Toronto Babcock went with 4 LHD and 2 RHD all playoffs, Carrick (a RHD) was healthy scratched the entire playoffs, so it does not appear like Babcock is very committed to 3 RHD.
So I guess you can add Babcock to the list of indifferent coaches in regards to 3 RHD.
|
Did you read what I said?
Having the players is the important part.
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
|
|
|
06-02-2018, 09:04 AM
|
#50
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by theslymonkey
Did you read what I said?
Having the players is the important part.
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
|
Babcock had the players, Carrick played most of the year. Come playoff time Dermott had beat him out. Babcock had the ability to go with 3 RHD. He did not because he went with the 6 best dmen, mainly because this 3 RHD thing is completely artificial. Babcock had the personnel and still went with a LHD on the right side, because the RHD thing is not really that important.
If the Flames actually want to play an up-tempo game, it would be a mistake to keep a guy like Stone who does not have the ability to play that game. They would be much better served having Brodie on his off-side than hoping Stone could ever develop the ability to quickly move the puck north south. The same holds true for Hamonic to a lesser extent. The Flames should figure out what type of game style they want to play and then find the right players to play that, as opposed to asking guys to demonstrate which way they shoot and then make sure they have 3 of each.
Last edited by Aarongavey; 06-02-2018 at 09:07 AM.
|
|
|
06-02-2018, 09:28 AM
|
#51
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sec206
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aarongavey
Babcock had the players, Carrick played most of the year. Come playoff time Dermott had beat him out. Babcock had the ability to go with 3 RHD. He did not because he went with the 6 best dmen, mainly because this 3 RHD thing is completely artificial. Babcock had the personnel and still went with a LHD on the right side, because the RHD thing is not really that important.
If the Flames actually want to play an up-tempo game, it would be a mistake to keep a guy like Stone who does not have the ability to play that game. They would be much better served having Brodie on his off-side than hoping Stone could ever develop the ability to quickly move the puck north south. The same holds true for Hamonic to a lesser extent. The Flames should figure out what type of game style they want to play and then find the right players to play that, as opposed to asking guys to demonstrate which way they shoot and then make sure they have 3 of each.
|
You're comparing top 4 D to the leafs 6/7D. That's a huge difference. The flames right side is elite with Hamilton and Hamonic. Moving Brodie there is foolish. It would put one of them on their offside or down to the third pairing. Both situations would be bad. Brodie played better on the right side because he had an All Star D playing on his left. Gio makes everyone look good.
Handedness is huge in sports. Every position in hockey is critical to the flow of the play. Baseball is the same. Pitchers, and all infield positions have a big advantage if the player is of a certain dexterity. It has been discussed here at nauseam, so I'm not going to go into it again. But thinking that it doesn't make a difference is not reality.
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
|
|
|
06-02-2018, 09:42 AM
|
#52
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macindoc
I think you've got that mixed up. AFAIK, Brodie has only played LD since Gulutzan was hired. He definitely played RD when he was with the Heat, as Flames' management's comments about him back then indicated how impressed they were with his progress in spite of being a first year pro and playing on the off side.
Putting him in a rigid system in which he was forced to play mostly against the boards and always pass laterally to the D on the other side or straight up the boards to set up a break out took away Brodie's greatest strengths, which were lateral movement and creativity with the puck. It made him (and the whole D) very predictable and easy to defend against. If a system called for Gaudreau to be a power forward/mucker, he probably wouldn't be very good at it. Does that make him "not that good to begin with"? You have to develop a system that is suited to and maximizes the strengths of the personnel you have.
|
Bingo. And that is 'Coaching 101.'
One of the main criticisms, at least from me, of Gulutzan was that he felt that the system was more important than the players playing it and if they just kept hammering that square peg into the round hole hard enough it would eventually fit.
This is a theory to which I do not hold.
The coach has to maximize the strengths and abilities of his team while mitigating the strengths of his opponents and Gulutzan didnt do this.
He had his way of doing things and thats how it had to be done.
And at the same time, other teams realized that this was a ridiculous weakness and exploited the hell out of it.
I would bet that a lot of opposing coaches would say to their players after the Flames let in a muffin:
"Get the first line back out there and go for their throats because they're notoriously fragile."
And it worked. A lot. Embarrassingly often.
And this is why you see the heavy criticism of Gulutzan for not using his timeout to just give his guys a second to re-group and further the criticism of sending the same group that just was on for a bad goal against back out rather than a new and fresh group.
Its amateur.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-02-2018, 09:58 AM
|
#53
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Ah, the old Brodie should be on the right side myth.
|
I know, right? Almost as pervasive as the Ovechkin plays better on the left side myth. They should have kept forcing him to play on the right and traded a first, two seconds and a prospect for a lesser player on the left side, signed another left-handed left wing and forced Ovi to play the rest of his career playing right wing scoring 30 goals a year instead of 50.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fan in Exile For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-02-2018, 10:21 AM
|
#54
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary
my comment was directed to those that uniformly started calgary was awful during the regular season, which is not the case at all... if smith wasn't injured, there was every reason to believe that they would have remained in the race until the bitter end.
so inconsistent? Absolutely. "Awful"? No.
|
this^^^
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to The Cobra For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-02-2018, 11:54 AM
|
#55
|
Owner
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
|
I would say a strong majority of NHL coaches would prefer to have defenseman playing on their natural side, there are just too many dangerous areas of the ice for a dman where taking the puck on the backhand is ill advised.
At the end of the season they moved Stone to the left to play with Andersson. The two areas that almost nuked him here were;
a) D to D pass in his own zone where he had to move the puck from his backhand to his forehand with oncoming forecheckers all over hime
b) every time he had to handle either a pass back to the point on the wall, or a cross blueline pass.
Both instances almost turned into turnovers often
Brodie is a bit different in that he's found a way to use that inside body position on his off side to see the ice better on the reverse behind his own net or in his corner that became a strength.
But that doesn't take away from his exposure in the other areas.
If a coach has the option you go correct sided every time.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-02-2018, 01:12 PM
|
#56
|
Franchise Player
|
It's not just about handedness though.
Some people are left eye dominant and some are right eye dominant. I am left eye dominant, and even though I shoot left, I always preferred playing the right side because I saw the ice better.
I didn't have the backhand skills that Brodie has, but I was still more comfortable on the right side than the left.
I think that putting it all down to handedness, and saying that everyone is better on their 'natural side', and basing that only on which way they shoot, is too simplistic. It is probably right for the majority of players, but definitely not for all.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-02-2018, 01:30 PM
|
#57
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
Just a remark on goaltending in the regular season.
When Fleury was hurt, Vegas won no matter what goaltender was in net. That is what good teams should be able to do.
If the Flames couldn’t win without Smith, they had other problems.
|
no argument here...
Smith erased a lot of mistakes and provided confidence to a team that was, seemingly, fragile.
something like a decent power play was potentially good for a few more wins during the season however and that could have tipped the balance.
Calgary was a peripheral playoff team, so i would not be surprised to see calgary in the playoffs again this year, following a cycle of in every other year until they get talent on the roster
|
|
|
06-02-2018, 03:09 PM
|
#58
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Pas, MB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
Just a remark on goaltending in the regular season.
When Fleury was hurt, Vegas won no matter what goaltender was in net. That is what good teams should be able to do.
|
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Inferno For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-04-2018, 08:59 AM
|
#59
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Springbank
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I would say a strong majority of NHL coaches would prefer to have defenseman playing on their natural side, there are just too many dangerous areas of the ice for a dman where taking the puck on the backhand is ill advised.
At the end of the season they moved Stone to the left to play with Andersson. The two areas that almost nuked him here were;
a) D to D pass in his own zone where he had to move the puck from his backhand to his forehand with oncoming forecheckers all over hime
b) every time he had to handle either a pass back to the point on the wall, or a cross blueline pass.
Both instances almost turned into turnovers often
Brodie is a bit different in that he's found a way to use that inside body position on his off side to see the ice better on the reverse behind his own net or in his corner that became a strength.
But that doesn't take away from his exposure in the other areas.
If a coach has the option you go correct sided every time.
|
People that want Brodie (or sometimes Johnny) to play on the opposite side almost always focus on one aspect (Brodie's stretch backhand pass or a better shooting angle for Johnny) but ignore all the other aspects of the position, like receiving passes on the wall on D or pinching at the offensive blue line, or protecting the puck while skating up ice as a winger, or shooting short side (and making the goalie travel further).
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-04-2018, 09:54 AM
|
#60
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary
absolutely, there were stretches where Calgary looked great and then streaks were calgary looked awful.
the fact remains that Calgary was in the playoff until Smith got injured and they really played poorly after that injury... but that lends itself to the characterization by many in the media that Calgary was a 'fragile' teams. 22 occasions during the year, Calgary allow two goals in two minutes....almost like they had lost confidence and were on their heels...Fragile was fitting imo...
my comment was directed to those that uniformly started calgary was awful during the regular season, which is not the case at all... if smith wasn't injured, there was every reason to believe that they would have remained in the race until the bitter end.
so inconsistent? Absolutely. "Awful"? No.
|
To your point, outside of the few elite teams in the NHL, every team experiences dips and inconsistent play. The tunnel vision irked me a lot this season because every problem we faced, 80% of the league faced as well.
That's the nature of the NHL with the parity we have. You're not going to get consistency all the time. Playing a full 60 minutes is hard because the other is just as good and is paid to win too. Every team can be fragile. Imagine how insane LA fans went when they went from #1 in their division for the first couple months to outside of the playoffs in their second of the season. It's just how the league was built and the ups and downs are a part of it.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Classic_Sniper For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:47 AM.
|
|