|
View Poll Results: Pick your top five selection list
|
|
Ekblad-Reinhart-Draisaitl-Bennett-Dal Colle
|
   
|
44 |
8.21% |
|
Ekblad-Reinhart-Draisaitl-Dal Colle-Bennett
|
  
|
7 |
1.31% |
|
Ekblad-Reinhart-Bennett-Draisaitl-Dal Colle
|
  
|
118 |
22.01% |
|
Ekblad-Reinhart-Bennett-Dal Colle-Draisaitl
|
  
|
56 |
10.45% |
|
Ekblad-Draisaitl-Reinhart-Bennett-Dal Colle
|
  
|
7 |
1.31% |
|
Ekblad-Draisaitl-Reinhart-Dal Colle-Bennett
|
  
|
4 |
0.75% |
|
Ekblad-Bennett-Reinhart-Draisaitl-Dal Colle
|
|
21 |
3.92% |
|
Ekblad-Bennett-Reinhart-Dal Colle-Draisaitl
|
|
10 |
1.87% |
|
Ekblad-Bennett-Draisaitl-Reinhart-Dal Colle
|
|
22 |
4.10% |
|
Ekblad-Bennett-Draisaitl-Dal Colle-Reinhart
|
|
4 |
0.75% |
|
Reinhart-Ekblad-Draisaitl-Bennett-Dal Colle
|
|
27 |
5.04% |
|
Reinhart-Ekblad-Draisaitl-Dal Colle-Bennett
|
|
9 |
1.68% |
|
Reinhart-Ekblad-Bennett-Draisaitl-Dal Colle
|
|
85 |
15.86% |
|
Reinhart-Ekblad-Bennett-Dal Colle-Draisaitl
|
|
41 |
7.65% |
|
Reinhart-Ekblad-Dal Colle-Draisaitl-Bennett
|
|
4 |
0.75% |
|
Reinhart-Ekblad-Dal Colle-Bennett-Draisaitl
|
|
2 |
0.37% |
|
Reinhart-Draisaitl-Ekblad-Bennett-Dal Colle
|
|
2 |
0.37% |
|
Reinhart-Draisaitl-Bennett-Ekblad-Dal Colle
|
|
1 |
0.19% |
|
Reinhart-Draisaitl-Dal Colle-Ekblad-Bennett
|
|
2 |
0.37% |
|
Reinhart-Bennett-Ekblad-Draisaitl-Dal Colle
|
|
19 |
3.54% |
|
Reinhart-Bennett-Ekblad-Dal Colle-Draisaitl
|
|
8 |
1.49% |
|
Reinhart-Bennett-Draisaitl-Ekblad-Dal Colle
|
|
9 |
1.68% |
|
Bennett-Ekblad-Reinhart-Draisaitl-Dal Colle
|
|
12 |
2.24% |
|
Bennett-Ekblad-Draisaitl-Reinhart-Dal Colle
|
|
2 |
0.37% |
|
Bennett-Reinhart-Ekblad-Draisaitl-Dal Colle
|
|
5 |
0.93% |
|
Bennett-Reinhart-Ekblad-Dal Colle-Draisaitl
|
|
6 |
1.12% |
|
Bennett-Reinhart-Draisaitl-Ekblad-Dal Colle
|
|
4 |
0.75% |
|
Bennett-Draisaitl-Ekblad-Reinhart-Dal Colle
|
|
1 |
0.19% |
|
Bennett-Draisaitl-Ekblad-Dal Colle-Reinhart
|
|
1 |
0.19% |
|
Bennett-Draisaitl-Reinhart-Ekblad-Dal Colle
|
|
3 |
0.56% |
 |
|
04-10-2014, 04:28 PM
|
#3481
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube
Everyone would be singing a different tune is Calgary was REALLY bad.
I'm fine with the current system. But knowing the luck of Sabres fans, they'll change it just in time to screw us out of a superstar next year.
|
oh boo ####ing hoo.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 04:46 PM
|
#3482
|
|
Our Jessica Fletcher
|
If we go for a dman around our pick, I really hope it's Julius Honka. Probably the 2nd best Dman in this draft behind Ekblad.
hehehehehehehe
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 04:47 PM
|
#3483
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Yeah.
Poor Sabres fans, because Reinhart or Ekblad isn't enough.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to djsFlames For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 04:48 PM
|
#3484
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz
If we go for a dman around our pick, I really hope it's Julius Honka. Probably the 2nd best Dman in this draft behind Ekblad.
hehehehehehehe
|
What is his meat to potato equivalency?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 04:49 PM
|
#3485
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
What is his meat to potato equivalency?
|
Shepherd's Pie.
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 04:50 PM
|
#3486
|
|
Franchise Player
|
Cream corn only? Or the abomination with peas and carrots in there?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 05:46 PM
|
#3487
|
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zevo
Unfortunately you have to be in the right situation to purposely tank. The Avs did it perfectly last year by not dumping a bad coach, even though everyone knew they should.
|
This is such a load of crap. It was a shortened season. They wanted Roy. He had a job. They had to wait till the off season. Their top scorer last year was PA Parenteau. Injuries, bad seasons, and players not signed is why they were bad. Not because they purposely wanted to suck and draft Mackinnon.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hackey For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 05:49 PM
|
#3488
|
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Central CA
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
Cream corn only? Or the abomination with peas and carrots in there?
|
I think you have those reversed 
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 05:50 PM
|
#3489
|
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
Were the Flames supposed to be a contender in 2004? How about Edmonton in 2006? These examples prove you can't count out unexpected playoff performances.
|
Did you not learn anything from the last 5-10 years?
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 05:57 PM
|
#3490
|
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
Geezus, your sub-standard punctuation is hard to read through. My scenario was something that I knew all along after suggesting that specific draft scenario. You can get a superstar at 9th, of course you can; but I don't believe teams would continually use that tactic more than once, if used at all, since revenue and ticket sales depend on making the playoffs. Teams need these, or else you get perennial losers and teams can lose fan interest. Just ask Phoenix or Florida.
It's also not a guarantee that a good team that tanks will get the 17th spot; other teams below them are pushing for that too. That's a risk a tanking team would take.
Playoff upsets happen all the time, too, so discrediting that possibility is short-sighted at best. If anyone knows about underdogs going far in a playoff run, it's us Flames fans.
|
No team intentionally tanks. At least not the players. A GM might be able to try and tank based on the roster he ices but players are not going to base their play around draft position or playoff revenue. If a team is battling for the 7th or 8th seed the players will determine the outcome, not management.
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 05:59 PM
|
#3491
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auckland, NZ
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackey
Did you not learn anything from the last 5-10 years?
|
What do you mean?
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 06:01 PM
|
#3492
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auckland, NZ
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackey
No team intentionally tanks. At least not the players. A GM might be able to try and tank based on the roster he ices but players are not going to base their play around draft position or playoff revenue. If a team is battling for the 7th or 8th seed the players will determine the outcome, not management.
|
Okay? Tell that to moon.
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 06:08 PM
|
#3493
|
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
What do you mean?
|
That miracle runs hardly ever happen and when they do they usually don't end well. And that doing whatever to try and just make the playoffs gets you nowhere as well. That having a bit of patience and trying to build a quality club is the best plan of action. Short term pain for long term gain, not the other way around. Sure we all want to get better as fast as possible but you have to be smart about it. Why take two step forwards now that will only stagnate us later? The end goal should be the most important. Not some flawed idea that if were not "getting better" were "tanking." We can go throw 12 million at Stastny which would make us better but is it the right move? The Oilers "tanking" has just got some posters on some kind of high horse. At the end of the day it's just hockey.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Hackey For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 06:08 PM
|
#3494
|
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
Okay? Tell that to moon.
|
It applies to both of you.
If your trying to suggest giving the first pick to the 17th place team though that is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 06:18 PM
|
#3495
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Auckland, NZ
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackey
It applies to both of you.
If your trying to suggest giving the first pick to the 17th place team though that is ridiculous.
|
Well, if you bothered to read my original post on this, I threw it out as an idea for conversation purposes only, blatantly acknowledging it will likely be controversial. Nowhere have I confirmed I actually believe it's the way things should be in reality, but carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 06:34 PM
|
#3496
|
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Man has this thread gone downhill in the last 10-15 pages. Prospects anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
|
anyonebutedmonton,
Buzzard,
Francis's Hairpiece,
Hank Hill,
icecube,
Miniac,
MrMastodonFarm,
Robbob,
Ryan Coke,
RyZ,
Stupid,
Tbull8,
Zevo
|
|
04-10-2014, 06:37 PM
|
#3497
|
|
#1 Goaltender
|
Every team has the same goal and that is to win the Stanley Cup. It brings benefits all across the board for everyone involved. The best way to help the bad teams get better is to give them the best prospects. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes teams abuse the system. Changing the system is not going to change that. It's just going to change the way teams abuse the system. The current system is fine. Make some tweaks if need be. There is never going to be a perfect system. All the whining about the system likely stems from our biggest rival getting many high picks and the fact that we keep winning just enough to not get them. If we were to switch the scenarios likely no one says anything. The whole crying about "tanking" just gets tiresome. I'm far more concerned with who we are going to land with our pick than I am with if teams are tanking or not.
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 07:11 PM
|
#3498
|
|
Our Jessica Fletcher
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
Man has this thread gone downhill in the last 10-15 pages. Prospects anyone?
|
I think it's all been talked to death at this point.
Until the lotto on tuesday, I wouldn't expect any new material in here.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 08:52 PM
|
#3499
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 555 Saddledome Rise SE
|
Combining the sportsclubstats standings probabilities with the draft lottery probabilities, these are our chances of getting each pick after tonight's games.
1st: 7.8%
2nd: 0%
3rd: 0%
4th: 4.0%
5th: 58.9%
6th: 27.3%
7th: 1.8%
Last edited by Frequitude; 04-10-2014 at 09:01 PM.
Reason: Had old numbers
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2014, 08:54 PM
|
#3500
|
|
Some kinda newsbreaker!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
|
Flames can only finish 25th, 26th or 27th after tonight's games.
Sports club stats says the Flames Will not finish 25th if the Flames get 2 points or less in their remaining games.
Last edited by sureLoss; 04-10-2014 at 09:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:54 AM.
|
|
