[News] Flames Management Want to Create a "Black & Blue" Team

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well its really hard to make sense of your rationale since it seems to be inconsistently applied. Tkachuk has high end skill, intelligence and work ethic and you are down on him for no obvious reason. He was top 5 on 9 out of 10 scout's lists that Bob Mackenzie talked to. Consensus top 5 pick and you have him at 11. And you choose to compare him to Benoit Pouliot? Strange and very questionable all around. Seems very irrational to me.

Not sure what's so questionable about Pouliot. Pouliot was a 4th overall pick. His scouting report?

Originally Posted by RLR

Pouliot has come further, and faster, than anyone in this year's class. With his speed, vision and passing ability, he can play a finesse game, but he also has the power and disposition to get mean and physical with teams that want to play that way.

But some players just don't put it together. Tkachuk may have great stats playing with Marner and Dvorak right now but every time I've seen him whether at WJC or when the Knights were on TV all I saw was a role player. You don't win cups stocking up on role players. Agree to disagree, I know I'm not the only one who just sees a role player in Tkachuk.

Keller is super high on your list despite his size limitations that may limit his effectiveness in the NHL. I know the list makes sense if your own head but I can't make much sense of what you value. The way you go on about Datsyuk, Johnson, Palat and Kucherov all the time has to make me think you overrate small skilled players.

Every prospect, in every sport, in a draft or otherwise, has limitations that may limit their effectiveness in the big leagues. And they have strengths that maximize their effectiveness in the big leagues. The key is weighing them in a manner that you think translates.

I value High-end Skill, Motor, IQ, and Speed. Small players don't have any advantage in that, though usually to get to this level they need more of that stuff than bigger players. But big players can and do have that stuff too. Ideally every player is Mario Lemieux but they're not.

Size is not a handicap, in this sport that is not vertical like Football or Basketball. Reach helps, but isn't the end-all be-all. I've seen Lidstrom and Rafalski play against some massive forwards, and I've seen Datsyuk and Zetterberg play against some huge defensemen. The idea that you need to build to "match up" to the opponent is what I don't agree with. You build a team to make others match up to your strengths. And you can't always just fit every peg into every hole. Perron absolutely did not fit in Pittsburgh and Hagelin absolutely did not fit in Anaheim, yet both fit perfectly when they were traded for each other. WHich brings me to:

Philosophically we'll never agree on the ideal makeup of a team

No, we won't, because I don't think there's an "ideal" makeup of a team, I believe you can win many different ways, and good "ideal" players won't always fit. You build around your best players, not around your "ideal" players. And if your best players aren't good enough, that's when you're screwed.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Not sure what's so questionable about Pouliot. Pouliot was a 4th overall pick.

Pouliot went 4th in a year with very poor depth at the top end. Wanna know who else went in that top 10? Brule, Skille, Setoguchi and Brian Lee. It was a super weak draft at the top end.

This years draft has an extremely strong top end. I'm not sure Pouliot if he was in this draft would go top 15. Tkachuk is a much, much better prospect than Pouliot was.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

But some players just don't put it together. Tkachuk may have great stats playing with Marner and Dvorak right now but every time I've seen him whether at WJC or when the Knights were on TV all I saw was a role player. You don't win cups stocking up on role players. Agree to disagree, I know I'm not the only one who just sees a role player in Tkachuk.

Role player in what sense? He sure does play a role, he plays the roles of playmaker, finisher, power forward on his line, arguably the best line in junior hockey. Is it the best line in junior only because of Marner and Dvorak? Hell no. Tkachuk is just as important on that line despite having less flash, less wow.

You do win cups by stocking up on role players and having players fit all the roles. Tkachuk fills the role of a playmaking 1st line power forward who can finish. Pretty important role and one we currently lack.

You call him a role player as if he was a 3rd or 4th line grinder. That is massively underrating him. He wouldn't be a consensus top 5 pick in a strong draft if he didn't have 1st line upside.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Every prospect, in every sport, in a draft or otherwise, has limitations that may limit their effectiveness in the big leagues. And they have strengths that maximize their effectiveness in the big leagues. The key is weighing them in a manner that you think translates.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I value High-end Skill, Motor, IQ, and Speed. Small players don't have any advantage in that, though usually to get to this level they need more of that stuff than bigger players. But big players can and do have that stuff too. Ideally every player is Mario Lemieux but they're not.

Agree. I'd add size/strength in there as attractive qualities as well.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Size is not a handicap, in this sport that is not vertical like Football or Basketball. Reach helps, but isn't the end-all be-all.

Lack of size is most definitely a handicap. Hockey does compare somewhat to football in that both sports feature physical battles where bigger, stronger players have an inherent advantage. In order to get into a prime scoring area (the slot) you are going to have to beat defensemen. Big, strong, physical defensemen will try to prevent forwards from getting into the slot and in front of the net. They will hit forwards, push them down, hold them, obstruct them, etc. A good defensemen can angle a forward to the outside and then rub them out along the boards and strip them of the puck. This is much more easily done to small forwards. The bigger and stronger you are, the harder you are to strip of the puck, push down, check, etc. The smaller and weaker you are, the more easily you are shoved down, checked, held, etc. So yes, smaller players are inherently at a disadvantage.

Now some small players are able to overcome this disadvantage by being fast, agile, sublimely skilled, and super smart and then beat defensemen using those attributes. But they cannot avoid physical battles completely. They will still lose board battles. They will still be cleared out of the net easily. And thus they are less effective on the road when the opposition coach can match up his most physical, shut down players vs your best small players.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I've seen Lidstrom and Rafalski play against some massive forwards, and I've seen Datsyuk and Zetterberg play against some huge defensemen.

Yes, those players have/had superior hockey sense and skill.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

The idea that you need to build to "match up" to the opponent is what I don't agree with. You build a team to make others match up to your strengths. And you can't always just fit every peg into every hole.

Well you can view it in different ways. We don't need to be strong just to match up against our division rivals. We need to be strong so that we're less easily pushed out of the game and so that road match ups aren't as easy for the opposition coach. We need to be strong so that the opposition can't match up against us as easily. It isn't a reactionary measure. It's so that we're harder to play against, harder to match up against, harder to push out of the game, harder to physically dominate.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

No, we won't, because I don't think there's an "ideal" makeup of a team, I believe you can win many different ways, and good "ideal" players won't always fit. You build around your best players, not around your "ideal" players. And if your best players aren't good enough, that's when you're screwed.

Yes there are ideal makeups. Ideally you don't have too many small, weak forwards in the top 6 or you become easy to shut down like Montreal is. Ideally you have a few big, strong, skilled forwards in your top 6 to make your team harder to check, harder to shut down and harder to contain. Big powerforwards make room for the small skilled players. Big powerforwards win the board battles and net front battles so that the small players can dangle and get open. Look how important a guy like Paccioretty is compared to the more skilled Desharnais.

If your best players are all soft/weak and you build around them you're still going to go nowhere. You need some size and strength to be harder to shut down. And you need some size and strength so that you can more easily shut down the opposition.

Size/strength does matter. It's not everything, skill, heart, skating all matter too. But IMO you are underrating the importance of size/strength.

[activeStick]

I actually don't have a problem with any of the comments made from Burke or Treliving since Hartley was let go.

They want big players who are skilled and can skate. I actually think all teams do so it's kind of an unnecessary thing to state but whatever.

I don't have an issue either with Hartley playing the style he did because he can't throw Monahan and Gaudreau out there to bang and crash and reasonably expect success... same thing applies to the defensive group outside of Engelland. He didn't try to fit square pegs into round holes which is the right decision.

Also don't blame Treliving for not building a roster of guys suitable for their desired style of play since that takes time. These kinds of players are expensive to acquire and take time to grow if they're drafted.

People say Treliving wanted a possession game and Hartley wanted dump and chase which I disagree with... I didn't see Monahan and Gaudreau dump it in too often because again, that's not their game. But if you're expecting Stajan or Bouma to play keep away instead of dump it and chase it, you're going to be disappointed.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by denverflame

johnny gaudreau - sean monahan - milan lucic
craig berube - joel otto - nick fotiu
chris simon - tim hunter - sandy mccarthy
krzysztof oliwa - jim peplinski - brian mcgrattan
eric goddard


mark giordano - tj brodie
robyn regehr - brad mccrimmon
paul baxter - charlie bourgious
jamie allison

rick tabbaracci
reggie lemilin

?

fyp

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

fyp

Where's Willi Plett?

[MarkGio]

I don't agree with Burke in the top 6, bottom six. San Jose carries a top 9, so does LA, Washington, TB. I think Stanley Cup winning clubs carry a good top 9 and then a forced to go with a top6/bottom6 because of cap constraints.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I don't agree with Burke in the top 6, bottom six. San Jose carries a top 9, so does LA, Washington, TB. I think Stanley Cup winning clubs carry a good top 9 and then a forced to go with a top6/bottom6 because of cap constraints.

The Flames already have 6 out of the 9 players on the roster. Backlund and Frolik make up 2/3rds of a great 3rd line. They need a physical guy on that line like Bouma or Ferland and that's a good group.

Ideally the makeup of the forward group would be

Gaudreau-Monahan-Backes type UFA
Bennett-Logan Brown or PL Dubois-Colborne (if Tkachuk, make Bennett the C)
Frolik-Backlund-Brouwer type UFA
Ferland-Bouma-Hathaway

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

The Flames already have 6 out of the 9 players on the roster. Backlund and Frolik make up 2/3rds of a great 3rd line. They need a physical guy on that line like Bouma or Ferland and that's a good group.

Ideally the makeup of the forward group would be

Gaudreau-Monahan-Backes type UFA
Bennett-Logan Brown or PL Dubois-Colborne (if Tkachuk, make Bennett the C)
Frolik-Backlund-Brouwer type UFA
Ferland-Bouma-Hathaway

Yeah, more or less. Not a fan of Brouwer, but the Flames could have a top 9. I'm not sure Stajan fits on this club anymore. He's not physical enough for the bottom pair and not skilled enough for the top 9.

Might be best to just buy him out

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Where's Willi Plett?

And Gary Roberts?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Mightyfire89

And Gary Roberts?

Gary Roberts had a 50-goal season. Can't have that on Team Black & Blue.

[Mightyfire89]

^^^Ahh yes, too true.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV;5745277



No, we won't, because I don't think there's an "ideal" makeup of a team, I believe you can win many different ways, and good "ideal" players won't always fit. You build around your best players, not around your "ideal" players. [B

And if your best players aren't good enough, that's when you're screwed[/B].

Nailed it. Especially the bolded part.

[Sylvanfan]

The current color scheme is fine. I see no need to change our glorious red to blue.

[Flames_F.T.W]

Until the Western conference changes, you pretty much have to be 'black and blue' to make it through teams like LA, SJ, ANA and STL.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Flames_F.T.W

Until the Western conference changes, you pretty much have to be 'black and blue' to make it through teams like LA, SJ, ANA and STL.

Dallas and Nashville are not 'black and blue'.

Nor is Chicago.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by heep223

Dallas and Nashville are not 'black and blue'.

Nor is Chicago.

If the Flames could find a Hossa, it would pretty much solve all our issues.

[Flames_F.T.W]

Originally Posted by heep223

Dallas and Nashville are not 'black and blue'.

Nor is Chicago.

Both Dallas and Nashville are trailing in their respective series.

Chicago has been eliminated.

Obviously 'black and blue' isn't the only way to win, but in the gruelling playoffs, 'black and blue' players with skill are essential in winning 16 games.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

If the Flames could find a Hossa, it would pretty much solve all our issues.

Can said Hossa strap on the pads and put in a .915 save percentage? If so, I wholeheartedly agree!

[AltaGuy]

I wish Burke didn't talk so much

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by heep223

Can said Hossa strap on the pads and put in a .915 save percentage? If so, I wholeheartedly agree!

I was taking that one as a given.