Quote:
Originally Posted by timbit
Not mentally prepared to play their best game.
It happens, but shouldn’t happen in consecutive games.
The top paid and best players have a lot of accountability , IMO.
They are, predominately , the major reason for wins and losses.
People whining about the 4th line and bottom pair D carries no weight with me.
|
So:
1)I think that the issue is the "best game" of the Gaudreau-Lindholm-Tkachuk line, or for that matter the Gaudreau-Monahan-Lindholm line in past years, is too dependant on one winger to do too much. I just don't see the "Patrice Bergeron" Flames coaches saw in Lindholm... I see Ryan Kesler maybe. If your centre isn't the best player on your best line, the line will have nights like this more often than not and fail to build a rhythm. Essentially, we are missing a number one centre. They have at least two ELITE wingers in Mangiapane and Gaudreau IMO, and Tkachuk when he is successfully deflecting point shots is up there (for some reason he has seemingly had horrible luck in that area the last few years...?). In Lindholm they have a player who doesn't make his wingers better 5v5 even when he's producing it feels more like his wingers are the ones making him better.
2) It's not just the forward line, but they were largely out there with Hanifin and Andersson. These two lack the dynamic play of a true top pair. About three seasons ago we had a still-effective Giordano and a dynamic Brodie largely compensating for Monahan's shortcomings. With Gio aging out and Brodie departing, we really lost that element. Last year was rock bottom in this aspect as our top 4D completely lacked that element - this year's a bit better with the injection of Oliver Kylington - but no one would confuse Kylington-Tanev for Giordano-Brodie - and even if they did, that pair didn't play a ton with our top line (this is IMO probably because Tanev is a worse offensive zone player to Andersson?). Simply put it would take acquiring Drew Doughty or Alex Pietrangelo to play opposite Kylington to recreate the "don't need a centre" dynamicism of the old Gio-Brodie pair. Essentially - we are missing a #1 defenseman. At the very least, the D pair that might be best-suited to this dynamic role is not yet trusted in it. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Flames were always at their best when Gio-Brodie was our top pair, even when they had a guy like Dougie Hamilton for a couple years in between it never felt the same. IMO this is because Brodie, in a homeless man's Bobby Orr way, replaced Monahan's shortcomings in transition. If we don't have a puck-dominant centre, then we at least need a puck rushing D out there with them.
3) The 4th line and 3rd pair are not "responsible" for today's loss. However - if you don't have your best possible roster out there, giving you a chance every shift, you become too dependant on your top players. This gets magnified when you're not a team that plays its top players 20-23 minutes a night the way Edmonton do. I'm not sure even Gaudreau has had a 20 minute night this season - and if he has it was powerplay opportunity driven rather than double shifting or any of those other techniques some coaches use to extract more out of their stars. So there is an opportunity cost to having Zadorov out there instead of, say, Kylington. That
opportunity cost is lessened if it's Valimaki because you have a higher chance of scoring if Valimaki is out there.
When the coach heavily rolls four lines and 3 pairs 5v5 (and Sutter does) IMO you need all of them to contribute 5v5. Stars should score more often of course (not only because they are more skilled but also because the touches they get on PP1 direcrly lead to an ability to "get into" the game) but the depth should still be a legitimate threat to exploit other team's depth. In the regular season maybe it shouldn't be the difference between playoffs and nonplayoffs, but in the playoffs it might be the difference between cup and no cup. And what better time to try different bottom six /bottom pair combinations than... the regular season?
Again I always point to my fave team of the cap era
Sheary-Crosby-Hornavist
Kunitz-Malkin-Rust
Hagelin-Bonino-Kessel
Kuhnhackle-Cullen-Fehr
Dumoulin-Letang
Maatta-Daley
Cole-Schultz
That team came at you in waves, and it made their best players better. If the third pair was out there with their top line, they were a threat. Of the top pair were out there with their fourth line, they were able to check other team's stars to submission.
Yes, Crosby and Malkin are the creme de la creme. But when your bottom six are suffocating the opponent, it wears them down. Those one-by-one offensive zone line changes... they make the top players better. That 3rd pair D who can do just a little bit more in the offensive zone than dump it in deep, it can be the difference in a tight game.
I don't expect a finished product in November, but I do expect some more offensive upside and transition ability because we have the pieces - they're just in the pressbox or the AHL.
I think a Valimaki-Gudbranson pair is a lot closer to Cole-Schultz than it is to Zadorov-Gudbranson. It's not about how Zadorov plays as an individual. I've mentioned it before but I'd even like to see a Zadorov-Kinnvall paie at some point. But So long as Gudbranson is the clear #5 then his partner should be someone who can bring more offensive ability. A valimaki shot through traffic might just be the difference between a Tkachuk scoring and not scoring. It all trickles up and down.
4) Markstrom deserves some criticism for the GWG. I'm not asking him to stand on his head - just make the saves he's supposed to make. He needs to have that GWG. Are two goals enough goal support? Sometimes they are not and sometimes they are. This was a low event game both ways and that was not a high quality chance. Neither have some of the other third period goals he's conceded in losses. Sometimes... you just need your starting goalie to make one more save. You don't need to win every game where you score below league average, but you shouldn't be losing every game where you do.
