Defense is the area of play most affected by coaching.
Under Hartley our D was at one point highly appreciated, to the point where acquiring Hamilton was called "almost not fair" by a rival GM. I think it's safe to say in retrospect it wasn't about the high quality of players really. Hartley was a competent coach. Not the greatest coach ever, but experienced and competent.
Gulutzan was flat out incompetent in creating a working defensive structure, and, Peters so far has looked almost as bad. The only difference seems to be that Peters can at least do the bare minimum basic head coach stuff like shuffle lines when needed, change things when they don't work, and call a time out.
When a coach always seems to have terrible goalies, it might not actually be simply about the goalies.
Carolina still has two bad goalies. McElhinney and Mrazek are both way under .900, but they manage to keep the GAAs at a decent level because their team defense isn't a poop show.
We suck defensively, and it's not because of lack of player material. We have the players for success.
But at this level, coaching makes a massive difference. Now, I'm not quite ready to give up on Peters because this is a very young season. Maybe he gets this thing together. I really hope he does.
But I can't help but wonder why are we rolling the dice on an unproven coach, when Darryl Sutter was available. His WORST stretch as a head coach was when he made the playoffs with the Sharks 4/4 times and won a round twice....makint that one "weak" stretch better than everything the Flames have done without Darryl since 1990.
I think Darryl instills in players what it takes to win, he also knows how to get them playing at a very high compete level. Now lets say we had Darryl for 2 or 3 years and then hired a coach like Peters, the players would now be of a different culture. The compete level in Sutter's teams at times was rarely unmatched. They came to play, came to play hard and with a winning attitude. I like a lot of things Peters does but still maintain we would have been better to hire a coach with success and winning pedigree. There is no substitute for experience especially when your teaching a group of talented young guys to get it right.
With our core getting older we took a bit of a gamble with Peters I support him and hope he can get this team rolling. I agree this team can be better defensively and can win the current goaltenders. When Hartley's goaltenders struggled he compensated by having guys blocking shots. For the most part I liked the teams compete under Hartley. We have the talent, but we need to find a way to get the team to continue to play better defensively.
The Following User Says Thank You to DazzlinDino For This Useful Post:
I have been out of the country for for the past week, so haven't watched any hockey. Of the bazillion goals given up in that timeframe, how many were "bad goals" due to the goaltending?
So far this season, the flames team defence has been flat out garbage. Can't handle any kind of strong forecheck, costly turnovers, bad timing on deciding when to pressure the puck carrier vs play conservative.
Outside of Brodie, i don't think any of the dmen have individually been horrid, which leads me to believe this is just as much on the forwards.
Frustrating to see yet another disappointing and mediocre team on the ice from this franchise yet again.
Forwards not good enough, defense not good enough, goaltending not good enough. Other than the flashes of brilliance here and there from Gaudreau, and solid hockey smarts from tkatchuk, it's a pretty blah group.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bubbsy For This Useful Post:
Sounds like Smith is getting the start Monday. This team is run by sycophants
Yeah I'm not sure he's the guy you want to start against a team like the Leafs who can score like the Penguins but this organization seems hell bent on sinking or swimming with this guy.
This is a quibbling point but do you actually think the Flames looked “brutal” yesterday? I thought they looked monumentally better than they did in the past three. Otherwise, you are right. Teams will hit rough patches, and that is what this past week looks like to me. It’s way too premature to be talking about how awful this team is, or to resign this season (after 11 games!) as a failure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, I didn’t think they looked brutal last night ... mostly I was just disappointed that they didn’t come out and play a great game, after such an embarrassing one... but ya, I agree with you, they weren’t brutal.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
... Eakins' claims Gagne's line played Kessel's line even...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hells Bells View Post
Yeah, Gagner's line was -4 and Kessel's was +4, so it all evened out.
^ bubbsy: Most of the goals were Smith’s fault. Like the one yesterday where he was screened from the point.
The rest were on Brodie. Like when Tkachuk had possession and turned it over for a 2 on 1 that Washington capitalized on. That was on Brodie because he too was on the ice.
That should catch you up
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
Probably a little early but all things considered the Kings and Ducks are on the edge of having too many of their best players being post apex. That said it's not like the Flames have taken advantage of their slow starts as once again a non-winning October from this constantly mediocre franchise.
The good news in this is that the middling finish to October doesn’t hurt them. Last year the Flames were up against ridiculously good starts in the Pac Div. by LA, VGK and Vancouver. They were able to overcome only one of these, but even despite this were still right in the mix for a #2-3 playoff spot all the way through Feb when their goalie was injured. This year’s team looks better to me. I am not terribly worried about them being one point off the Division lead after 11 games.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
^ bubbsy: Most of the goals were Smith’s fault. Like the one yesterday where he was screened from the point.
The rest were on Brodie. Like when Tkachuk had possession and turned it over for a 2 on 1 that Washington capitalized on. That was on Brodie because he too was on the ice.
That should catch you up
I lol’d
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
The good news in this is that the middling finish to October doesn’t hurt them. Last year the Flames were up against ridiculously good starts in the Pac Div. by LA, VGK and Vancouver. They were able to overcome only one of these, but even despite this were still right in the mix for a #2-3 playoff spot all the way through Feb when their goalie was injured. This year’s team looks better to me. I am not terribly worried about them being one point off the Division lead after 11 games.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree that this doesn't hurt them but they could have helped themselves with a good start. With a handful of new players and new coaching staff not unexpected that they may still be adjusting but they need to shake this funk going into November.
I agree that this doesn't hurt them but they could have helped themselves with a good start. With a handful of new players and new coaching staff not unexpected that they may still be adjusting but they need to shake this funk going into November.
I know it’s not unexpected, but Gallant in Vegas didn’t seem to need any excuses around players, coaches, or goaltending last year. It is disappointing that they are in a funk at all.
Come on. S/O losses aren’t real losses. It was a tie game in which the Flames dominated the OT.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agree with you here. I hate when a team is 0-1-3 or something and people say it’s a four game losing streak. It’s different. You’ve gotten 3 points not zero.
Agree with you here. I hate when a team is 0-1-3 or something and people say it’s a four game losing streak. It’s different. You’ve gotten 3 points not zero.
It is a losing streak though. The point is a overtime lose. By definition, the team still lost the game.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Joborule For This Useful Post:
Disagree entirely. S/O losses are ties where it matters in the standings.
They lost the shootout...they played the game itself to a tie.
Points wise is exactly the same thing if the shootout isnt around.
Old system... 5 wins 5 losses 1 tie = 11 points. New system...5 wins 6 losses =11 points.
If you consider yesterday a loss, then they should only have 10 points now.
Its a ridiculous system but it does make for parity and keeps teams in the hunt much longer than it used to.
Okay, but an another team 'won' the game. So a team won a game, and the other team tied? Tied with who? Logically it doesn't make sense, hence a shootout loss is still called overtime loss.
