[PGT] Flames defeat Flyers 2-1

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Didn't Huska say before that he coaches/emphasizes the defensive side of the puck but offensively he allows them to be creative?

I think Huska system is to have as low event a game as possible and not allow much defensively. Because in theory the better goalie will win more often than that and we can lean on Wolf.

It certainly worked last year, it is just boring as hell.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by getbak

The main reason for that is they've played at least one more game than every team except Boston. In terms of shots per game, they're 17th overall.

mid pack despite the schedule is alright...the point was that the Flyers play a VERY defensive game though, Rick Tocchet always has.

[calumniate]

Glad to see Wolf in fine form again

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

I don’t get off on others’ unhappiness…I get annoyed at the constant theme hammered at us that losing is good and high picks will save us. There is no real evidence that is true. Lots of teams get high picks and go nowhere worthwhile. Some…occasionally…like COL do…but it’s neither a slam-dunk nor an axiomatic truth. It’s a belief. I don’t believe it.

Would I be happy (happier?) with a high draft pick? Maybe. Depends what they do with him.

And I'm just as annoyed at the constant reminders that a losing season will beget a culture of losing that will persist for years. It didn't happen to the Avs when they had a terrible year and drafted Makar. It didn't happen to the Panthers who were brutal for a long time before winning the presidents trophy, then going to the finals 3 times in the following years.

The idea that a bad year or two will attach a losing culture to the franchise is not an axiomatic truth. It's a belief. I don't believe it.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I'm actually not sure he's untradable at this point - I think you just have to take a bad contract back with him.

I think if I'm a scout watching him play I see a guy that's way more well rounded than he was in Florida. More grit to his game in the dirty areas of the offensive zone, and better defensively.

I also look at the Flames team that generates nothing off of the rush, very poor on the PP, and wonder how much that is limiting his offensive upside.

If I can dump a contract that's bad and take a chance that I might be able to get a impact offensive forward if they fit better in my offensive system I might think about it as a GM.

Like I look at Carolina and if you could get rid of Kotkaniemi as part of the deal, and add Huberdeau...maybe that's not the worst. (or maybe even Ehlers or Svechnikov if their struggles continue in Carolina).

It effectively makes Huberdeau's $10.5M more like $6M since you're paying Kotkaniemi $4.8M to be a 4th line winger right now.

Ehlers was always going to be a bad contract. He is a 60 point guy who would be a prime candidate to become worse once he was off the Jets number one PP. Almost 40% of his points last year came on the PP. 8.5 million for him was a stretch under any circumstances. Huberdeau likely finishes with more points than him this year, despite having inferior teammates

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Ehlers was always going to be a bad contract. He is a 60 point guy who would be a prime candidate to become worse once he was off the Jets number one PP. Almost 40% of his points last year came on the PP. 8.5 million for him was a stretch under any circumstances. Huberdeau likely finishes with more points than him this year, despite having inferior teammates

Ehlers is one of those guys who scores pretty goals and you think he's great, and then you look at his stats and see he is not nearly that productive (for some reason he only gets near PPG in seasons where he only plays 3/4 of a season or less).

[bucksmasher]

They need to hire a couple of face punchers to clear the scrums around Wolf.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

And I'm just as annoyed at the constant reminders that a losing season will beget a culture of losing that will persist for years.

You seem to have got the message mixed up. The message is that if you ship out all the veterans who actually know how to play winning hockey, that will beget a culture of losing that will persist for years.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You seem to have got the message mixed up. The message is that if you ship out all the veterans who actually know how to play winning hockey, that will beget a culture of losing that will persist for years.

You're right, the logical thing to do instead is to keep all the vets and finish in the mushy middle every year. In hopes of one day getting hot and going on a lucky playoff run, because we never finish low enough to get elite talent.

Oh wait, that is what we have done for years and resulted in 3 playoff series wins in two decades LOL. It's the Flames way, why try something different.

[Tbull8]

Not sure where else to ask, but does anyone know if the Flames are flying the Gaudreau's out for Wednesday? Either way I'm wearing my Monahan jersey for sure

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by Tbull8

Not sure where else to ask, but does anyone know if the Flames are flying the Gaudreau's out for Wednesday? Either way I'm wearing my Monahan jersey for sure

I don't know about that, but have you watched the Johnny and Monahan episode on prime? I was legit tearing up watching it.

What an absolute tragedy.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You seem to have got the message mixed up. The message is that if you ship out all the veterans who actually know how to play winning hockey, that will beget a culture of losing that will persist for years.

You can count on one hand the number of Flames veterans who actually know how to win… and still have 3 fingers left over.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

You can count on one hand the number of Flames veterans who actually know how to win… and still have 3 fingers left over.

For sure you would want a Coleman or Kadri in the locker room if you were a contender. I don't know how relevant them having won in playoffs with stacked teams is to leadership on the Flames though.

Plenty of teams tanked and lost and lost. And then drafted elite players, built around them and won. You need the building blocks first.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

You're right, the logical thing to do instead is to keep all the vets and finish in the mushy middle every year. In hopes of one day getting hot and going on a lucky playoff run, because we never finish low enough to get elite talent.

Did I say that? Did the team do that? No and no.

Look up ‘false dichotomy’ before you post again on this subject, mkay?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

You can count on one hand the number of Flames veterans who actually know how to win… and still have 3 fingers left over.

You seem to think that only players with their names on the Stanley Cup know how to win games. This isn't remotely what I'm talking about.

Some people around here get it. The tank crowd, apparently, think NHL players are just like EA game cards, and never actually have to learn anything from more experienced players.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You seem to have got the message mixed up. The message is that if you ship out all the veterans who actually know how to play winning hockey, that will beget a culture of losing that will persist for years.

At any time we can bring in 30-somethings who have won cups earlier in their careers to mentor our young players. And it would cost us little to nothing to do so. They are not some rare commodity.

The McKennas of the world, on the other hand, are a rare commodity.

Originally Posted by dino7c

I would rather they make the best deal rather than the fastest one personally

True, but with the Tanev situation being what it is, you wonder if there's an immediate need in Toronto to bring someone in, and perhaps Tre is looking at Andersson as an option.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

At any time we can bring in 30-somethings who have won cups earlier in their careers to mentor our young players. And it would cost us little to nothing to do so. They are not some rare commodity.

The McKennas of the world, on the other hand, are a rare commodity.

You seem to think it's mutually exclusive to both have a shot at McKenna and have vets on the team. And that means Calgary vets, not a last minute insertion. This just isn't true.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I generally agree with Mathgod - I myself no longer believe that one or two bad seasons will necessarily instill a losing culture that persists and will be difficult to eradicate. I believe good organizations are good organizations, period. I think if the Flames finish last in the league twice in a row and play craptastically to get there, that it won't necessarily result in the Flames becoming Buffalo. Buffalo is Buffalo because they have failed to hire a decent GM or coach. When they decided to 'turn it around', they overpaid for a guy like Skinner, they brought in a coach who was over in Europe working in soccer, etc., and let's not forget how they kept alienating their star #1 center Eichel at the draft itself, and then when he needed surgery. I am sure the list gets pretty long there, and they are a product of a bunch of things, not just tanking.


However, I myself don't want to see the complete exodus of players being moved out. Why? I don't think the Flames NEED to do that in order to finish last, and I don't think that you need to have that type of losing culture to 'tank' this season. I guess we will see about the Blues and watch to see if they blow it up or not, but as of right now, Calgary is the only team that got worse on paper as compared to last season, and are likely to get worse with the subtraction of Andersson at some point this season (and possibly more!).

For instance, I have often stated that I would love for the team to keep Coleman around. Him and Backlund together in the dressing room and on the ice show the kids what it takes to be an NHL player.


With that being said, if you can get value for Coleman, and assuming he wants to go, then by all means get value.


I would prefer a 'sooner rather than later' approach when dealing Andersson and/or Kadri this season. Why?


1) If the Blues blow it up, that's going to affect the market for Kadri.
2) The price of 'moving up' in the draft is very expensive. IF Calgary suddenly surges and climbs into 5th, 6th, or 10th, then there chances at a franchise-altering piece is reduced, and it would be extremely costly - most costly than the combined assets gained from the Kadri trade + the 10th overall pick - to select 1st, or perhaps even 2nd overall. If you are the Flames, would you moved down from let's say 5th down to 10th for a late 1st + prospect? I guess it depends on the ledges of course, but I am not sure I would. I definitely wouldn't do it if I had a top 3 pick.


Not to say that the Flames should accept a bad offer. I just hope it does happen sooner than later, and just really leverage this terrible start and gain something out of it by the draft.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You seem to think that only players with their names on the Stanley Cup know how to win games. This isn't remotely what I'm talking about.

Some people around here get it. The tank crowd, apparently, think NHL players are just like EA game cards, and never actually have to learn anything from more experienced players.

Some people get it …. Geez if only everyone could be as smart as JayRandom! There’s no chance you could be wrong !

And at what point does a player shift from too young to know how to win games to being a veteran who can help win the games? The Flames aren’t exactly young with a ton of rookies .

When are Frost, Farabee , Shags and Bahl able to start creating the culture ? They are all signed long term (except Frost)

It’s amazing the above with Backlund , Lomberg , Huberdeau and Weegar would completely fall apart culture wise if Coleman and Kadri were gone !

Says something about that group then and what a mistake acquiring and extending them were I guess

[Bingo]

Anyone wonder if maybe you've gone too far on a hockey message board if there are a number of posters that have an absolute disdain for you?

I know I'd want to check things at that point.

You?