Friedman: Flames, Treliving have to show young guys they want to win at deadline

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by Red Menace

Shot blocks are only necessary because the other team has the puck.....if you lead the league in that category it may not be a good thing....

Bravo, been trying to explain that for 3+ years!

Positive plays made in negative situations shouldn't be rewarded, it should be seen as a situation that should be avoided in the beginning!

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Red Menace

Shot blocks are only necessary because the other team has the puck.....if you lead the league in that category it may not be a good thing....

Same for hits and takeaways then?

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Phaneuf has a long term, just like Kessel. No thanks.

You know at some point we will need to package guys to get guys like Kessel and Dion... Stop just looking at contracts, these guys can play for crying out loud.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

Bravo, been trying to explain that for 3+ years!

Positive plays made in negative situations shouldn't be rewarded, it should be seen as a situation that should be avoided in the beginning!

While it's somewhat true, blocking a larger percentage of shot attempts than league average does give your team an advantage. Therefore, a player good at blocking shots helps.

Shot blocking and Pronger are the only two reasons Edmonton reached the finals in 06

[blender]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

You know at some point we will need to package guys to get guys like Kessel and Dion... Stop just looking at contracts, these guys can play for crying out loud.

As opposed to either of them hopefully!

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Kessel is an elite offensive talent.

He is worth every penny he's paid, and he still has plenty of gas left in the tank.

I can think of maybe 2 or 3 teams in the NHL that *shouldnt* be kicking tires on Kessel.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

Bravo, been trying to explain that for 3+ years!

Positive plays made in negative situations shouldn't be rewarded, it should be seen as a situation that should be avoided in the beginning!

Right! Because, you know, if you just stopped rewarding players for doing the right thing in negative situations, the negative situations would just go away. It is totally possible for one team to control the puck 100% of the time. In fact, it's expected, and you are a horrible failure at hockey if the other team ever gets a shot for you to block!

EDIT: While we're at it, we should stop rewarding people for being doctors. All they are good for is doing the right thing in negative situations. Sickness should be seen as a situation that should be avoided in the beginning.

[blender]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

Kessel is an elite offensive talent.

He is worth every penny he's paid, and he still has plenty of gas left in the tank.

I can think of maybe 2 or 3 teams in the NHL that *shouldnt* be kicking tires on Kessel.

Fair enough, but I think the Flames will be fine on that end in the future. The group of Monahan, Gaudreau, and especially Bennett, will make him unnecessary IMO. If the Flames want to spend the assets to acquire Kessel, they would be better off going after OEL; that's where the team need lies.

Phaneuf?? Not worth it at any price.

My .02

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Right! Because, you know, if you just stopped rewarding players for doing the right thing in negative situations, the negative situations would just go away. It is totally possible for one team to control the puck 100% of the time. In fact, it's expected, and you are a horrible failure at hockey if the other team ever gets a shot for you to block!

Exactly. While it is perhaps unfortunate that Russell is placed in a position that he has to block lots of shots, it is a good thing that he does it. Unless you want him to flamingo.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Red Menace

Shot blocks are only necessary because the other team has the puck.....if you lead the league in that category it may not be a good thing....

This is such a silly myth.

Assuming that more blocked shots means more shots against is a fallacy. The fact is that BOTH teams possess the puck and every player is on the ice for shots against - even Bobby Orr.

While it is certainly statistically possible that a shot block leader is a leader purely due to the fact that he is on the ice for more shots against than other players, the fact is that the total number of shots against that any player faces is not all that divergent.

If one player has 200 shot blocks and another has 100, it is not because he spends twice as much time in the defensive zone (statistically, that does not happen), it is because he is putting his body in front of shots.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by blender

Fair enough, but I think the Flames will be fine on that end in the future. The group of Monahan, Gaudreau, and especially Bennett, will make him unnecessary IMO. If the Flames want to spend the assets to acquire Kessel, they would be better off going after OEL; that's where the team need lies.

Phaneuf?? Not worth it at any price.

My .02

I think you can never have too much firepower.

But I 100% agree that the team's needs lie more towards a young defenceman with first-pairing upside.

Phaneuf is better than jilted Flames fans will give him credit for, but I don't think he's a fit at all.

Unfortunately, Burke is quite single-minded when he sees a player that he likes. He almost always gets them. And when he goes to another team, he often tries to re-acquire them for his new team.

Kessel falls into this category. Unfortunately, so does Phaneuf. Whether the shine wore off of Phaneuf is another question. But I think it's pretty unlikely he ends up in Calgary again. Edmonton would be a better fit.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Right! Because, you know, if you just stopped rewarding players for doing the right thing in negative situations, the negative situations would just go away. It is totally possible for one team to control the puck 100% of the time. In fact, it's expected, and you are a horrible failure at hockey if the other team ever gets a shot for you to block!

EDIT: While we're at it, we should stop rewarding people for being doctors. All they are good for is doing the right thing in negative situations. Sickness should be seen as a situation that should be avoided in the beginning.

Great reply, but still the wrong mindset, train of thought.

I'm not condemning Dr. Kris Russell for blocking 200 shots per game (I'd be the first to thank him!). I'm blaming the team, coaching staff for that to be necessary in the first place.

Of course fans take it a step further and add "blocked shots" to their important stats and use it as a way to pump of their favorite players. To which I would suggest they should still focus on "Shots taken that do not get blocked or misdirected and end in the opponents net"

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This is such a silly myth.

Assuming that more blocked shots means more shots against is a fallacy. The fact is that BOTH teams possess the puck and every player is on the ice for shots against - even Bobby Orr.

While it is certainly statistically possible that a shot block leader is a leader purely due to the fact that he is on the ice for more shots against than other players, the fact is that the total number of shots against that any player faces is not all that divergent.

If one player has 200 shot blocks and another has 100, it is not because he spends twice as much time in the defensive zone (statistically, that does not happen), it is because he is putting his body in front of shots.

It could also be because he (or his coach) gives the opponent too much time / space which leads to a lot more shots against (needing to be blocked).

[GettinIggyWithIt]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

It could also be because he (or his coach) gives the opponent too much time / space which leads to a lot more shots against (needing to be blocked).

Then just watch the player. Russell isn't blocking shots because he's out of position, because he has a ton of giveaways or because he gives them a ton of space. He's been very good this year defensively (shot blocking, using his stick, boxing out the opposition and taking away time and space). I think his strong defensive play has allowed Wideman to step into the play and often times he has bailed Wideman out.

Sometimes one just needs to watch the player to get a good assessment if you don't believe the stats provide enough context. Regarding the original discussion, there is no way I would want to replace Russell with Phaneuf. Russell is much better overall in my opinion, and better value.

[Five-hole]

Russell has been fantastic lately.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Russell was a great find. His numbers in junior were incredible.

To adress the threads topic though, I agree with Poe69s post on the first page. I dont see it as the Flames having to show the kids they want to win. Maybe it can be viewed as the Flames showing faith in their youngsters. We were very good when we had all those call ups earlier in the season. I think if glencross goes and we dont replace him its just a top 6 spot for sven or granlund opened up.

I think we will acquire an NHL defencemen for our bottom pairing who can move up to the 2nd pairing if need be, trade glencross and deal to get some picks or take a salary dump or whatever we can do within our patient rebuilding strategy. Other than that we will stick with who got us here.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

Positive plays made in negative situations shouldn't be rewarded, it should be seen as a situation that should be avoided in the beginning!

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

I'm not condemning Dr. Kris Russell for blocking 200 shots per game (I'd be the first to thank him!). I'm blaming the team, coaching staff for that to be necessary in the first place.

We'll move right past the contradictions and I'll ask the same question of you I asked Red Menace earlier - do hits and takeaways fall into the same category?

Seems you (and Red Menace and perhaps those that thanked his post) feel the "negative situation" equates to the enemy team opposing the puck. Which is the teams and coaching staffs fault. But any personal stat that relates to rectifying this negative situation the team and coach created - ie: blocking a shot - at best should be ignored completely?

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

Of course fans take it a step further and add "blocked shots" to their important stats and use it as a way to pump of their favorite players. To which I would suggest they should still focus on "Shots taken that do not get blocked or misdirected and end in the opponents net"

Well maybe it's just me but Kris Russell is usually on the ice with at least 2 to 4 other players, plus a goalie. Any number of who could be responsible for creating these negative situations you speak of. But you've already sort of alluded to this above, where the team and/or coach is at fault for creating these negative situations.

Given that, is there maybe at least a bit of room for some positive acknowledgement of Kris Russell when he blocks a shot directed at our net? The NHL seems to think so, as they continue to track the "Blocked Shots" stat.

And even if Kris Russell was directly responsible for every single turnover that resulted in a shot directed at our net... which he's not... wouldn't it still be at least kind of commendable he's still trying to get in the way of some of these shots resulting from all his turnovers?

As opposed to Kris Russell not blocking or misdirecting these shots, and having them potentially end up in the back of our net... regarding the bolded in the above quote, if only said opposing team had a player like Kris Russell around to block and misdirect some of these shots that might have otherwise been destined for the back of their net.

Now that I think of it, where would goalies fall into this as well? What with their shot blocking and all...

[GioforPM]

I guess if a goalie leads the league in save % it's bad because he was forced to make saves.

[heep223]

Russell makes fantastic use of his stick and body to get in lanes. This is a good quality - not a bad quality.

[HUSKER4FLAMES]

Originally Posted by Where ru Chris O'Sullivan

Great reply, but still the wrong mindset, train of thought.

I'm not condemning Dr. Kris Russell for blocking 200 shots per game (I'd be the first to thank him!). I'm blaming the team, coaching staff for that to be necessary in the first place.

Of course fans take it a step further and add "blocked shots" to their important stats and use it as a way to pump of their favorite players. To which I would suggest they should still focus on "Shots taken that do not get blocked or misdirected and end in the opponents net"

Taking the next step in this line, goalies and save percentage are useless stats. Possess the puck all the time and the only thing to worry about are own goals. Excellent concept. Wonder which statistic driven possession driven organization will be trading their goalie for a face off specialist.