Mike Smith's... woes? He blows? Eating crows? Who knows! (Also David Rittich exists!)

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Well it wasn't just a sounds bite here, it was the whole entire interview. His tone, the potshots, the defensiveness, the crabby nature. Very difficult for me to like him or defend him at this point.

After watching the interview again I do see where you're coming from. I didn't like him accusing the media of making things up. That seemed a little confrontational, maybe even arrogant. The rest I had no problem with personally. He sounds like a pro who isn't going to panic just because some others might be suggesting it is time to panic.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

OR, now just hear me out for a minute, he is trying to maintain a positive approach and ignore negative stories like this one.

Put yourself in Smith's shoes for a second. Ok, so you're career is winding down and you had a really rough stretch earlier this year, so much so that you lost your starting job for a significant duration of time. That's a significant shot to a player's confidence, especially one who rides on confidence as much as Smith seems to. You can see the difference in his play from when he's confident to when he's not. I would wager that Sigalet's job is to maintain his confidence as much as possible so he plays better. All players are affected by a lack of confidence to varying degrees, Smith just seems to be affected by it more than most.

So he creates a narrative that isn't 100% truthful, but it helps him to maintain some steady play in net rather than completely crap the bed. So be it. It makes no difference how he gets there, as long as he plays okay.



Citation please? I cannot remember any significant instances where Smith blames everything on the other players. He may describe what happened in the game appropriately, but no more so than any sports writer would characterize what happened. This is a narrative that Coyotes fans have ascribed to him, but I've yet to see an egregious offense in this regard.



I agree with others in that I feel like we are looking for reasons to hate Smith rather than give him a pass with how he's handling criticism. It's a tough spot to be in, so if he's a little defensive, I get it. I'm not going to stress about his comments. I want to see how he plays on the ice. That's mostly what matters to me. If his defensiveness leads to him playing with focus and drive, and that ends up leading to a hot streak all the way through a playoff run? Well I'd be just fine with him barking at every reporter along the way.

I don't have any direct citations with me, I'm sure they're out there because it was on record. But even before he arrived here he was known for calling out his teammates. That was actually one of the concerns I had when he was acquired. But he came out of the gate on fire and was phenomenal his first few months to start last season.

But after the 5 day break, his game fell off significantly and there was definitely a point last season where he called out the team for the way they were playing. It's probably just in his nature since he's generally a very intense person, but his poor play this season along with his crabby interviews just leave a very sour taste in my mouth.

[Flash Walken]

Mike Smith literally cannot entertain criticism that his performances may be bad. It's a sports psyche thing.

His entire demeanor is built on the notion that he is an elite performer. His mental makeup suggests even the slightest vulnerability has an extreme impact on his performance.

You can see it on the ice the way he flails at pucks that go past him or sticks his arms up etc. His propensity to blame his teammates is a preemptive deflection from his own performance.

If Mike Smith started rationally discussing which goals were his fault and which weren't, his abilities as a pro would be significantly diminished.

Some guys just cannot entertain weakness in their game. Some guys thrive on criticism.

Kipper's mental outlook was that he didn't care at all. Smith's outlook is that he cares too much, all the time.

When Mike Smith is at his worst, it's when he's not caring. When he's momentarily distracted. When he skates to the bench with a smile on his face and James Neal has to go over and tell him to 'make a ####in' save'.

When he's at his best is when he's in a controlled rage.

It's just the way he's wired.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Good. The last thing the team needs is a goalie who is distracted by opinions of fans and the media.


Just because Smith doesn't "address" this with media and fans does not in any way mean he is failing to take accountability for his own mistakes. (What is he realistically going to say, anyways, that will make everyone feel better?)

Smith has no one to answer to but his teammates, his coaches, and himself. I suspect that whatever needs to be said is said behind closed doors and out of the public eye, as it should be.

But his claim that the media is making this up is where his opinion and answer comes into play. It's not that Smith needs to grovel at fans feet for forgiveness, but it's the dismissive 'I've been playing great' response to what he's done so far this season that's not ideal.

All fans are seeing is a goalie put up more garbage nights than is acceptable, take credit for the Ws and tell everyone that he's gone a great job. He doesn't need to answer to the fans, but he doesn't need to blow smoke up our ass either.

If he's honest behind closed doors that's great, and I hope he is. I hope that what he says to fans is the exact opposite of what he tells his team, as he needs to be better. He needs to carry his weight. What he can say to make fans feel better is that the nonsense is behind him, he's in this... and other things he's said throughout his career. What fans don't want to hear is that the goaltending they witnessed with their eyes looked 'pretty good' in his - and that everyone is making this up.

[jlh2640]

He seemed stand off ish with Franklin which is good if he focuses on what is important

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I read this as essentially a call to make changes for the sake of change. That is a terrible idea.

If you change goalie after goalie after goalie with no positive result (which is why you keep changing them), then why not try changing the other side of the equation. How many goalies does Sigalet get to work with? If things go south with Smith & Rittich this year, does BT bring in another 2 new goalies and let Sigalet have at them?

Moreover, just because Martin Brodeur was the greatest goalie who ever lived, this does not on its own qualify him to be any good at coaching.

I posted the same sentiment earlier - Rent a car from Enterprise lately?

As for paying "whatever you have to" to shore up goaltending, I will take a hard pass on this suggestion. Hopefully reliving can resolve the situation more effectively and affordably than through panicky, reactionary decisions that cripple the franchise.

So one position on this board is that Sigalet has had nothing but crap to work with (I disagree) and the issue is that BT has not done enough to bring in top quality goalies and that Sigalet is blameless. For most "affordably" means more unproven crap and "effectively" hasn't happened yet.

How do we square this circle?

At the end of the day, change for the sake of change in this one area couldn't hurt.

[Wolfman]

Put Sigalet on the same rocket as Smith and fire it into the sun

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Split98

but it's the dismissive 'I've been playing great' response to what he's done so far this season that's not ideal.

When he said that I think he was referring to his last stretch of games and not the whole season. Other than Saturday's game anyone who doesn't have a hate on for him should be pretty happy with how he played.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

If you change goalie after goalie after goalie with no positive result (which is why you keep changing them), then why not try changing the other side of the equation. How many goalies does Sigalet get to work with? If things go south with Smith & Rittich this year, does BT bring in another 2 new goalies and let Sigalet have at them?

Because if it isn't a problem, then making a change won't solve anything. I am with Bingo on this: Sigalet might be terrible at his job; he might be great at it. Who knows? If replacing him makes a big difference for Flames goalies, then I am all for it. But that is a different response than what you are advocating.

So one position on this board is that Sigalet has had nothing but crap to work with (I disagree) and the issue is that BT has not done enough to bring in top quality goalies and that Sigalet is blameless. For most "affordably" means more unproven crap and "effectively" hasn't happened yet.

That's one position. It is not mine.

Mine is that the goalies the Flames have employed for the past five decades have been underwhelming, and Sigalet may or may not have something to do with their poor performance, but I have no way to make that determination one way or the other.

For me "affordably" is a hell of a lot less than moving Johnny Gaudreau, Matthew Tkachuk, or Mark Giordano to acquire a new starting goalie.

How do we square this circle?

At the end of the day, change for the sake of change in this one area couldn't hurt.

Well, that's just not true.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I don't have any direct citations with me, I'm sure they're out there because it was on record. But even before he arrived here he was known for calling out his teammates. That was actually one of the concerns I had when he was acquired. But he came out of the gate on fire and was phenomenal his first few months to start last season.

But after the 5 day break, his game fell off significantly and there was definitely a point last season where he called out the team for the way they were playing. It's probably just in his nature since he's generally a very intense person, but his poor play this season along with his crabby interviews just leave a very sour taste in my mouth.

I think any time there was any talk of 'throwing teammates under the bus' has been nothing but a hockey player giving his honest perspective, in his opinion.
Which is something we rarely see/hear.

A couple examples
https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...t-start-games/

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...e-bus.2214311/

I don't see this as throwing anyone under the bus, but that's just my opinion

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Mike Smith literally cannot entertain criticism that his performances may be bad. It's a sports psyche thing.

His entire demeanor is built on the notion that he is an elite performer. His mental makeup suggests even the slightest vulnerability has an extreme impact on his performance.

You can see it on the ice the way he flails at pucks that go past him or sticks his arms up etc. His propensity to blame his teammates is a preemptive deflection from his own performance.

If Mike Smith started rationally discussing which goals were his fault and which weren't, his abilities as a pro would be significantly diminished.

Some guys just cannot entertain weakness in their game. Some guys thrive on criticism.

Kipper's mental outlook was that he didn't care at all. Smith's outlook is that he cares too much, all the time.

When Mike Smith is at his worst, it's when he's not caring. When he's momentarily distracted. When he skates to the bench with a smile on his face and James Neal has to go over and tell him to 'make a ####in' save'.

When he's at his best is when he's in a controlled rage.

It's just the way he's wired.

I don't agree with everything here but broadly speaking I think you are on to something. Goalies certainly need to be confident - but Smith has always been described as a very confident dude.
So there is a disconnect between how he views himself and what is happening - creating probably some pretty bad cognitive dissonance and manifesting itself in how he responding to some of the questions being asked of him.

Kipper's confidence never waned but when his skills started to lessen - he very quickly walked away. That's how he handled it.
"I suck at this now so I'm going fishing".

[SuperMatt18]

Yeah athletes need to have irrational confidence because if they don't then it's hard to be an elite athlete.

Bill Simmonds used to always make the same point about NBA players - they need to be irrationally confident in their abilities.

You can't go out doubting your shot. If you take 10 three pointers in a game and only make 1, you can't go out the next game and not take that shot. You need to be confident in your ability and try the same thing the next game.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I read this as essentially a call to make changes for the sake of change. That is a terrible idea.

Change for the sake of change happens all the time with head coaches and GMs, why not goalie coaches? It's not always about finding the exact root cause or someone to blame.. after a certain amount of time of poor results, you just gotta hit the reset button and bring in fresh eyes.

Sigalet may or may not be the problem, but this is a results oriented business, and whatever he is doing is not bringing the results. If goaltending sinks this team again, he's gotta go.

[Geeoff]

TBH I kinda like Smith's personality. Every time he makes a save it's like the biggest save ever and every time he gets bumped, it's like he died on the ice. I personally, find it entertaining except when it costs us on the scoreboard

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I don't have any direct citations with me, I'm sure they're out there because it was on record. But even before he arrived here he was known for calling out his teammates. That was actually one of the concerns I had when he was acquired. But he came out of the gate on fire and was phenomenal his first few months to start last season.

But after the 5 day break, his game fell off significantly and there was definitely a point last season where he called out the team for the way they were playing. It's probably just in his nature since he's generally a very intense person, but his poor play this season along with his crabby interviews just leave a very sour taste in my mouth.

Wasn't one of the biggest teammate gripes with Brouwer during end of season interviews the indifferent comments he made regarding Johnny getting slashed 21 times?

If people don't think post/pre-game interviews get attention from the other players on the team they're kidding themselves. Especially with how tight-knit this group is.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I don't agree with everything here but broadly speaking I think you are on to something. Goalies certainly need to be confident - but Smith has always been described as a very confident dude.
So there is a disconnect between how he views himself and what is happening - creating probably some pretty bad cognitive dissonance and manifesting itself in how he responding to some of the questions being asked of him.

Kipper's confidence never waned but when his skills started to lessen - he very quickly walked away. That's how he handled it.
"I suck at this now so I'm going fishing".

Some guys need to be intense to perform, some guys need to be loose.

Conroy kept Iggy from getting too uptight, and I think sometimes someone has to get Mike Smith fired up.

I think that's a reason why he likes to get involved in the play. He almost baits contact, he's looking for something to get fired up about.

I think when you see him making catastrophic mistakes in this regard, it's because he's trying too hard to get too fired up, he's lost the equilibrium of being in the zone. It may be a significant component of Bingo's theory that the goaltending at home is worse because the goalies are going 'cold' for longer periods.

I think Rittich might have the reverse problem. Too loose. Not playing with enough emotion. Doesn't have to be aggression or intensity, just not enough emotional presence. His interviews and public relationships with his teammates seem to indicate he's a passionate guy, but maybe a bit prone to happy go lucky.

It might also have to do with the proximity to the guys that keep him either loose or intense. On the road, everyone's together, at home, Smith's got 5 kids and a wife.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Because if it isn't a problem, then making a change won't solve anything. I am with Bingo on this: Sigalet might be terrible at his job; he might be great at it. Who knows? If replacing him makes a big difference for Flames goalies, then I am all for it. But that is a different response than what you are advocating.


Well, that's just not true.

If you have the worst goaltending over the past 5 seasons in the NHL (best finish in season long sv% is 17th) then yes actually, Change for the sake of change is beneficial.

THe logic stands that if we're already awful, then why continue doing the same thing and expect a different result.

Every coach and player, etc. is a lever that the organization can pull on to get maximum results for the organization.

Some levers have a bigger impact than others, and no one here knows how big of an impact Sigalet has on the organizations performance. However, to claim that we shouldn't change just for the sake of change is ignoring the fact that all else being equal, if we change out sigalet, maybe things get worse (the impact of that is relatively small, we are in 25th or so in league goaltending so far this season, and can only drop so many places to 31st) or they can get better (lotta upside there I would say)

So basically the potential upside far outweighs the potential downside of firing sigalet.

[David Struch]

Has any analysis been done to demonstrate if Mike Smith has let in more "bad" goals this season than others?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Wasn't one of the biggest teammate gripes with Brouwer during end of season interviews the indifferent comments he made regarding Johnny getting slashed 21 times?

This was a common complaint from a lot of posters on this board, and also in the media, but nothing that specific came out of the player post-season interviews themselves. We did hear some whispers that there were issues in the room, and insinuations that he was part of the problem, but that is about it.

If people don't think post/pre-game interviews get attention from the other players on the team they're kidding themselves. Especially with how tight-knit this group is.

I really don't think they care much. I have spoken to the press a fair bit in my own line of work, and collaborate regularly with colleagues who are also in the public eye. Stuff that gets said in the media is never taken very seriously at all, because we all understand how the media works. I assume that players are no different—Mike Smith is actually alluding to this by dryly dismissing outside criticism when he says: "well that's important then."

I think players care much, MUCH more about the person they know in the Dressing Room, on the ice, and in private than they do about what they say to sports reporters.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

...I think Rittich might have the reverse problem. Too loose. Not playing with enough emotion. Doesn't have to be aggression or intensity, just not enough emotional presence. His interviews and public relationships with his teammates seem to indicate he's a passionate guy, but maybe a bit prone to happy go lucky...

I was with you right up to here: When I watch Rittich play I see a VERY passionate and intense guy.