[PGT] Flames Fall 6-0 in Phx

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by jonesy

Hard to prove, but I totally agree. The momentum was stopped cold with that comment from Burke. It is like his comment about Yandle, completely unhelpful.

you'd think a comment wouldn't effect their play that much, the better they play the more they get paid. Don't see why a bunch of millionaires get to have their feelings hurt when their boss is mean, get to work and quit moping. People work harder for less and get much more trouble from their bosses and don't complain. I say if they can't handle Burke telling them how it is they shouldn't be playing hockey, why is it that hockey players don't just work their hardest and try to earn as much money as they can instead of mailing it in and putting on the sadface when things don't go their way? Boohoo your boss was mean, welcome to having a career.

[jonesy]

its not that simple.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

I was wondering the same, so I quickly looked it up. The Flames were 11-15-4 when Feaster was fired (37% winning percentage). They are now 15-22-6, so a record of 4-7-2 (31% winning percentage) since the firing. They were 13th in the west then and are still 13th in the west. So, not a tremendous amount of change, but they are losing in a more spectacular fashion and the talk about an atmosphere change is certainly out there and they do seem less resilient. I haven't noticed any more truculence. Lots of said it, and I believe it as well. It sure seems as if they are simply waiting for Burke to make his mark. He's not dumb, so probably sees that. But, he also probably doesn't care right now either.

Couple things - the reason the Flames even had a 37% winning percentage was because of their hot start. They were already on a downward trend prior to this.

The Flames are a bad team - they were able to jump on some other teams out of the gate by working hard and playing hard, but they are also playing a style that they cannot sustain over the long term. Players like Stajan and Stempniak aren't built to bruise and go to the net or play against the other teams top lines over an entire season. That just isn't their game.

Also your numbers are really the result of a single game. One more win and it goes back to "normal".

[Igster]

I still can't believe the Oilers have played 3 more games and are STILL 3 points behind the Flames. My God they are awful.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by AcGold

you'd think a comment wouldn't effect their play that much, the better they play the more they get paid. Don't see why a bunch of millionaires get to have their feelings hurt when their boss is mean, get to work and quit moping. People work harder for less and get much more trouble from their bosses and don't complain. I say if they can't handle Burke telling them how it is they shouldn't be playing hockey, why is it that hockey players don't just work their hardest and try to earn as much money as they can instead of mailing it in and putting on the sadface when things don't go their way? Boohoo your boss was mean, welcome to having a career.

I sure hope you never have a position of authority over others in a working environment, or the place would likely become toxic quickly.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Couple things - the reason the Flames even had a 37% winning percentage was because of their hot start. They were already on a downward trend prior to this.

The Flames are a bad team - they were able to jump on some other teams out of the gate by working hard and playing hard, but they are also playing a style that they cannot sustain over the long term. Players like Stajan and Stempniak aren't built to bruise and go to the net or play against the other teams top lines over an entire season. That just isn't their game.

Also your numbers are really the result of a single game. One more win and it goes back to "normal".

Don't disagree. They aren't really my numbers, just the numbers and suggest no significant change comparing the Feaster era to the post Feaster era (this year). Just wondering out loud if there was statistical evidence to support what appears to be an atmosphere/mood change since Burke fired Feaster. Doesn't appear to be.

[JobHopper]

Originally Posted by ricoFlame

Are any of these questions serious? Are you the same guy who asked Yzerman which teams he fears at yesterdays dumb Press Conference?

Why wouldn't they be?

Karri Ramo should have started that game.

It's fans like yourself who make the owners treat all fans like sheep and just keep taking their cash.

[moon]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

Why wouldn't they be?

Karri Ramo should have started that game.

It's fans like yourself who make the owners treat all fans like sheep and just keep taking their cash.

LOL

Because the guy suggests that playing a guy on back to back nights is a questionable move he is a sheep for owners to pillage?

It is a common practice among many, many NHL teams to not have guys play back to back. Arguably the best goalie in the league, Henrik Lundqvist, rarely plays back to back. I bet MSG is pleased about all the money they screw out of New Yorkers everytime that happens.

[moon]

Originally Posted by jonesy

its not that simple.

No but what is simple is that a bad team that was playing poorly before Burke and his "comment" are continuing to play poorly after. That is the simple and by far the more likely thing that happened.

The BS now they are all sad after the comment and that is why they are playing poorly is based on 0 evidence, makes little to no sense and takes huge leaps of logic and common sense to get to.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

Why wouldn't they be?

Karri Ramo should have started that game.

It's fans like yourself who make the owners treat all fans like sheep and just keep taking their cash.

Most teams don't start the same goaltender in back to backs

[JobHopper]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Most teams don't start the same goaltender in back to backs

What about Miikka Kiprusoff? How many back to back games did he start?

Karri Ramo should have easily started and played this game.

This team should have been made to take the bus back from Phoenix.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

What about Miikka Kiprusoff? How many back to back games did he start?

Kipper was a freak and despite that was probably overplayed by Mike Keenan and Brent Sutter.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

What about Miikka Kiprusoff? How many back to back games did he start?

Karri Ramo should have easily started and played this game.

This team should have been made to take the bus back from Phoenix.

NEWSFLASH, Ramo ≠ Kiprusoff

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

What about Miikka Kiprusoff? How many back to back games did he start?

Too many. And mostly because our backups were even less reliable than Ramo or Berra.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by moon

No but what is simple is that a bad team that was playing poorly before Burke and his "comment" are continuing to play poorly after. That is the simple and by far the more likely thing that happened.

The BS now they are all sad after the comment and that is why they are playing poorly is based on 0 evidence, makes little to no sense and takes huge leaps of logic and common sense to get to.

It was a bad team playing above expectations prior to the Feaster firing and Burke's comments. Prior to the firing, most would agree the Flames were out skilled, but outworked other teams and showed great "resilience" night in, night out - sometimes they'd even get winning results. That isn't happening anymore and this change in team behaviour occurred after Feaster was fired. Is that a result of the firing (and subsequent comments about the future of the team) or a result of their recent scoring woes and the frustrations that go along with it? Or, are they just tired from the way they need to play? Or all of the above? No one here knows, so it's subjective. But, whatever one feels is the reason, it isn't a huge leap in logic and does make sense.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

It was a bad team playing above expectations prior to the Feaster firing and Burke's comments. Prior to the firing, most would agree the Flames were out skilled, but outworked other teams and showed great "resilience" night in, night out - sometimes they'd even get winning results. That isn't happening anymore and this change in team behaviour occurred after Feaster was fired. Is that a result of the firing (and subsequent comments about the future of the team) or a result of their recent scoring woes and the frustrations that go along with it? Or, are they just tired from the way they need to play? Or all of the above? No one here knows, so it's subjective. But, whatever one feels is the reason, it isn't a huge leap in logic and does make sense.

It appears that many on this team have come to the realization that collectively they just aren't skilled enough. It has got to be extremely difficult to keep them motivated, when even their best effort isn't going to win many hockey games. The level of intensity that is required to win with this crew, is not sustainable.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by moon

No but what is simple is that a bad team that was playing poorly before Burke and his "comment" are continuing to play poorly after. That is the simple and by far the more likely thing that happened.

The BS now they are all sad after the comment and that is why they are playing poorly is based on 0 evidence, makes little to no sense and takes huge leaps of logic and common sense to get to.

A tad harsh on your part, especially since it was mentioned as being difficult to prove. It does bear discussion in my view. I have seen similar things happen in project envionrments when leaders changed and assumptions were made about their new philosophies. It does freak people out and can sub consciously affect their performance.
I don't just mean teams of subway sandwich artists either, I mean teams of skilled, seasoned professionals.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

It was a bad team playing above expectations prior to the Feaster firing and Burke's comments. Prior to the firing, most would agree the Flames were out skilled, but outworked other teams and showed great "resilience" night in, night out - sometimes they'd even get winning results. That isn't happening anymore and this change in team behaviour occurred after Feaster was fired. Is that a result of the firing (and subsequent comments about the future of the team) or a result of their recent scoring woes and the frustrations that go along with it? Or, are they just tired from the way they need to play? Or all of the above? No one here knows, so it's subjective. But, whatever one feels is the reason, it isn't a huge leap in logic and does make sense.

They were bottom 5 in the league before the firing and bottom 5 now. Not sure how that is playing above expectations since that is what most people thought they would be. Also, the stats have shown they are basically playing right around the same level pre and post firing so the whole premise is pretty much flawed.

I think the playing resilient and with heart was a bit of fans seeing what they want. I can't remember the stats but in the St. Louis game they said the Flames were something like 2-12 when trailing going into the 3rd. Not very resilient.

To say that an innocent comment is the driving factor in their play when skill, injuries, bumps and bruises, a larger sample size, long season etc. are all much more likely and logical explanations is a big leap. Especially when as mentioned not much has changed in terms of the teams play at all.

[moon]

Originally Posted by jonesy

A tad harsh on your part, especially since it was mentioned as being difficult to prove. It does bear discussion in my view. I have seen similar things happen in project envionrments when leaders changed and assumptions were made about their new philosophies. It does freak people out and can sub consciously affect their performance.
I don't just mean teams of subway sandwich artists either, I mean teams of skilled, seasoned professionals.

Could be a bit harsh but the conspiracy theories that try to make up complex reasons for the teams poor play when the obvious reason that the team isn't talented are getting very tiresome. Throw in the BS "Feaster was forced to do things by ownership" and the stretches people go to to ignore what is clearly in front of them is annoying.

[jonesy]

I believe that you have taken what I was merely speculating and attached many other things to it. The 'conspiracy' and 'feaster forced' comments had thing zero to do with the thought.

I also wonder how many people that dismiss the idea that players can play worse after a GM change or GM comment contradict themselves by saying that a player can play much better after being snubbed at Olympics (Hudler/St. Louis)
I believe that both are possible, because the mind is a funny blob of protoplasm that is very complex.