Flames Identity Crisis

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by rogermexico

I have been a 'this team is close, no need to over-react, just need a few adjustments to realize their potential' guy for a long time.

The tone of Rhett's voice when he said 'Who remembers the 07/08 Flames?' really shook me.

Because that team was probably legitimately some bad breaks away from doing something, and things didn't go their way. And in the end they just lost and that's all that's left.

I don't think this team is as anywhere near as close as that team was. So my god, what do you do? Because you've got to do something.

The 07/08 flames did what the Flames always did after winning the division in 06 and that was back into the playoffs. The Flames needed an Oilers win to avoid a win and your in game 82 against Vancouver.

Sure they had a 2-1 series lead that could have been 3-1 against the Sharks and also had a lead in game 7 but that team was never really that close. I definitely think this Flames team is closer than that group.

The following year is when things looked legit. Injuries and cap issues lead to them choking a 13pt division lead and eventually forced them against the Hawks in the 4-5 matchup which they lost.

[Psytic]

The Upper Western Conference was super strong 08/09.This current team would get man handled if we dropped them into the playoffs that year. I dont think this team is as good as the last build so far that's just imo of course. Markstrom might be as good as Kipper though ive been pretty impressed.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You don’t go anywhere in this league if your star players don’t play as hard without the puck as they do with it. We’ve seen that again and again in the playoffs. How many coaches does this core have to go through to find one they’ll listen to and play hard for?

Treliving will shake up the core before he changes the coach again. The problem is it’s terrible timing this season to make a big trade. And it will only get harder as the playoff races heat up. Throw in the expansion complications, and Treliving is in a real tough spot. I agree with Kootenay that his willingness to give the core on more shot this offseason may be his undoing.

I agree with everything here.

[Burning Beard]

Guys who are playing ok: Gadreau, Lindholm, Dube, Mangiapane, Lucic, majority of the D core, Markstrom

Guys who are there but meh: Monahan, Nordstrom (PK),

Pure unadulterated trash: Leivo, Simone, Bennett, Tkachuk, coaching decisions.

Would it really hurt this team at all to throw in Gawdin, Phillips, Ruzicka, Robinson, Rinaldo? Ritchie came in and finished checks and played hard. Alot harder than most of these guys.

At least if they played those guys the games might be funner to watch. When is the last time we saw a lot of these guys finish a check?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Sorry, I should have clarified, I meant in the offseason. You are correct, with everything going on it would be tough to make multiple big trades, not happening. I'm thinking about after this season. This team isn't winning anything this season, only make a huge trade right now if it makes sense. Leave the heavy lifting for later.

Yeah, I think major trades and restructuring should be done in the offseason.

But I think what needs to happen now is get the coach that you think is right for the rebuild (and who will demand more from this team now). Let the new coach run the rest of the season in order to see who he likes, who fits what he wants, who is good (or bad) in the room, etc.

Then in the offseason, make the moves that need to be made, and start building a team that fits the style you want to play.

(and please, for the love of God, make it an entertaining style)

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yeah, I think major trades and restructuring should be done in the offseason.

But I think what needs to happen now is get the coach that you think is right for the rebuild (and who will demand more from this team now). Let the new coach run the rest of the season in order to see who he likes, who fits what he wants, who is good (or bad) in the room, etc.

Then in the offseason, make the moves that need to be made, and start building a team that fits the style you want to play.

(and please, for the love of God, make it an entertaining style)

Exactly. Bring in a good coach to implement a better system and evaluate who needs to go after this season. Squeeze out whatever you can from this team as is for the remainder of the year. Need some fresh eyes on this roster to root out the cancer

[DeluxeMoustache]

This team has the personnel to play the way they did under Peters for the first three quarters of the season 2 years ago and finished second overall.

They need a coach that can leverage those strengths. Play a fast up tempo possession game that leverages skill and use the whole ice.

Players without the puck need to play smarter

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yeah, I think major trades and restructuring should be done in the offseason.



But I think what needs to happen now is get the coach that you think is right for the rebuild (and who will demand more from this team now). Let the new coach run the rest of the season in order to see who he likes, who fits what he wants, who is good (or bad) in the room, etc.



Then in the offseason, make the moves that need to be made, and start building a team that fits the style you want to play.



(and please, for the love of God, make it an entertaining style)

Agree 100% but would add that a new GM is a necessity too. Tre has had 7 years to make this team competitive and has fallen short. Bring in a coach and a gm to watch for the rest of the season then go to work in the summer.

[CroCop]

Wrong thread lol

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Teroy

I think his lack of production is due to his commitment to defence and having to play with Gaudreau. Trading Monahan won't change anything. If you want to change the culture of this team, trade Gaudreau.

Commitment to defense? Like there was zero commitment before? He’s a center, that position naturally requires some level of inherent defense. I can see more effort from him to push and shove and be harder to play against, but his line is still giving up a lot of goals and still being pinned in their own zone constantly. Not enough has changed on that front.

The biggest difference with Monahan is that he’s not finishing the Grade A chances he’s been getting. Getting chances is nice, but he gets paid to finish. His slight improvement in the “harder to play against” area isn’t made up by the lack of production. It certainly hasn’t hurt Lindholm who has transitioned to center seamlessly.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

This team has the personnel to play the way they did under Peters for the first three quarters of the season 2 years ago and finished second overall.

They need a coach that can leverage those strengths. Play a fast up tempo possession game that leverages skill and use the whole ice.

Players without the puck need to play smarter

This team is playing a similar system though. Why else would Ward have been hired, he clearly shared the same philosophy as Peters. They check hard, they pinch hard, they’re aggressive in their pursuit for offense. They don’t sit around and trap all day.

Is the current system the right one though? That’s a better question. This actually falls more on Treliving in my opinion, it’s his vision, he chose the players, he chose the coach that would play the system he envisioned. Everyone is sort of a puzzle piece in the grand scheme of things and Brad Treliving unfortunately brought the wrong puzzle to the party. It’s too difficult and no one is having fun.

[Gugstanley]

I feel like the team does have an identity and that is not working hard. It is starting to be like before Iggy left. The locker room needs a change in leadership.

[Savvy27]

The way that the coaches and players answered the identity questions were very interesting to me.

Giordano answered that the Flames identity is that they are a "checking team that scores". Which is unfortunately vague, imo. And I don't think that it really describes them all that well. From my viewing, the Flames are a talented team that pushes the pace when the context of the game demands it.

They play basically the same style every game, which is to play passively in the D zone, keeping opponents to the outside and try to outcompete them for rebounds and other loose pucks to exit the zone with quick passes (you can usually see this as a quick bump off the boards by the winger to the C and then either to the opposite winger who has come to the middle lane for the breakout or to one of the D who have jumped up into the empty space on the far side of the ice).

Offensively, they rarely seem to shoot off the rush, instead they either rim the puck hard around and battle for it with the other team, or they pull up and try to hit one of the trailers entering the zone. Otherwise they play a cycle game where their D are very aggressive pinching whenever the puck switches sides and they move the puck up to the blueline and across to attack from the top of the zone.

They are not overly physical on the forecheck or in the D zone. They step up at the blueline when they are defending the rush, but they are not a highly aggressive team on transition defense. They have individuals who are excellent shot blockers but I don't think it is even close to being a calling card of the team.

As for being detail oriented, I just don't see that. They are atrocious at giveaways in important areas of the ice, bottom third in the league for faceoffs (22nd), only 10 goals for in the first period (20th) while giving up the 5th most goals against, middle of the pack for penalty minutes (13th), mid-pack in shots against (13th), middle of the pack on PP(16th) and PK (18th) and they are bottom-half at maintaining leads for wins when they score first (18th). I'm sure there are a bunch of other stats that could show their details, but I'm very skeptical that any stats are going to prove the claim that they are a detail-oriented, tight-checking team that scores.

Realistically, I think they are a fairly loose team that is skilled enough that when they are rolling or when they really need a goal, they can hold onto the puck for long stretches, especially if their opponents are not trying that hard to score themselves.

Listening to Warrener this morning, I agree with him that they don't have an identity that reflects having a top goalie in either direction. They aren't a team that takes a ton of risks to generate offence and rely on Markstrom and they definitely aren't a team that plays ultra conservatively and dares their opponents to find a way to score on them.

They seem to be a team that wants their identity to be "we are very good at defence and also very good at offence", but that isn't an identity, it's perfection.They are a bland, "try to play the right way" team and it's a bore that isn't leading to wins.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You don’t go anywhere in this league if your star players don’t play as hard without the puck as they do with it. We’ve seen that again and again in the playoffs. How many coaches does this core have to go through to find one they’ll listen to and play hard for?

How about if the team quits on a LEGIT coach then we can have this conversation.

[Classic_Sniper]

Just saw a couple quotes by the coach and the captain on Twitter:

Geoff Ward:
A lot of issues are solved just by working hard and competing.....
“When we skate, we can play. When we don't skate, we've got no chance in this league.”

Mark Giordano:
Was asked about his team’s identity and he replied with (paraphrased) “this team checks and scores.”


But as I’ve already established in my original post, this team isn’t hard working, so that throws the checking objective right out the window. This team is also ranked 21st in goals per game.

So basically in a nutshell, they can’t check, they can’t score, they’re not fast or heavy or hard working and are only somewhat skilled.

The Calgary Flames = Dime a Dozen Diva

They look like a 7, but they act like a 10. They’re lazy and expect things to go their way without putting in any work. They don’t initiate because they think someone else will and it’s only when they’re down do they get desperate. But now that they found themselves a workhorse by the name of Jacob Markstrom over the summer, they think they can put in even less effort everyday and get the same results. This team is a Dime a Dozen Diva.

[zamler]

Geoff Ward:
A lot of issues are solved just by working hard and competing.....
“When we skate, we can play. When we don't skate, we've got no chance in this league.”

Skating and working hard is the key. This is pure motivational speak makes me want to lace em up right now.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by zamler

How about if the team quits on a LEGIT coach then we can have this conversation.

I'm not a fan of players that quit regardless.
Though I would clarify that with a couple of points before folks jump down my throat
- I don't think effort is the problem with this team. I think mental strength and commitment is.
- I think the coach gets too much attention and blame and the players not enough. Buuuuut...I honestly don't care much for the coach or the current roster.

To clarify further
- I love the goalie
- I feel good about the D, though Gio's drop off is having an impact clearly. But long-term it's in a good place
- I don't like the forward group
- I don't like the coach

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

The way that the coaches and players answered the identity questions were very interesting to me.

Giordano answered that the Flames identity is that they are a "checking team that scores". Which is unfortunately vague, imo. And I don't think that it really describes them all that well. From my viewing, the Flames are a talented team that pushes the pace when the context of the game demands it.

They play basically the same style every game, which is to play passively in the D zone, keeping opponents to the outside and try to outcompete them for rebounds and other loose pucks to exit the zone with quick passes (you can usually see this as a quick bump off the boards by the winger to the C and then either to the opposite winger who has come to the middle lane for the breakout or to one of the D who have jumped up into the empty space on the far side of the ice).

Offensively, they rarely seem to shoot off the rush, instead they either rim the puck hard around and battle for it with the other team, or they pull up and try to hit one of the trailers entering the zone. Otherwise they play a cycle game where their D are very aggressive pinching whenever the puck switches sides and they move the puck up to the blueline and across to attack from the top of the zone.

They are not overly physical on the forecheck or in the D zone. They step up at the blueline when they are defending the rush, but they are not a highly aggressive team on transition defense. They have individuals who are excellent shot blockers but I don't think it is even close to being a calling card of the team.

As for being detail oriented, I just don't see that. They are atrocious at giveaways in important areas of the ice, bottom third in the league for faceoffs (22nd), only 10 goals for in the first period (20th) while giving up the 5th most goals against, middle of the pack for penalty minutes (13th), mid-pack in shots against (13th), middle of the pack on PP(16th) and PK (18th) and they are bottom-half at maintaining leads for wins when they score first (18th). I'm sure there are a bunch of other stats that could show their details, but I'm very skeptical that any stats are going to prove the claim that they are a detail-oriented, tight-checking team that scores.

Realistically, I think they are a fairly loose team that is skilled enough that when they are rolling or when they really need a goal, they can hold onto the puck for long stretches, especially if their opponents are not trying that hard to score themselves.

Listening to Warrener this morning, I agree with him that they don't have an identity that reflects having a top goalie in either direction. They aren't a team that takes a ton of risks to generate offence and rely on Markstrom and they definitely aren't a team that plays ultra conservatively and dares their opponents to find a way to score on them.

They seem to be a team that wants their identity to be "we are very good at defence and also very good at offence", but that isn't an identity, it's perfection.They are a bland, "try to play the right way" team and it's a bore that isn't leading to wins.

Just blah all around to sum It up.

[Strange Brew]

Steinberg on fire right now. Well at least as much as I have been heard him. Pretty pointed criticism of Tkachuk, Monahan, Gio, the coach and Treliving. Others too.

IMO it begins and ends with the guy that is responsible for building this team. If the Hamonic and Lazar moves didn’t throw up gigantic red flags for you then time to check your prescription.

Yeah the Markstrom signing was great. Couldn't imagine a more obvious move.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Steinberg on fire right now. Well at least as much as I have been heard him. Pretty pointed criticism of Tkachuk, Monahan, Gio, the coach and Treliving. Others too.

IMO it begins and ends with the guy that is responsible for building this team. If the Hamonic and Lazar moves didn’t throw up gigantic red flags for you then time to check your prescription.

Yeah the Markstrom signing was great. Couldn't imagine a more obvious move.

Any coles notes for those of us who can't catch it?