Granlund discussion

[Poe969]

I think he'd be a really good 3/4 guy. He seems to play a lot like Backlund and I'd like if we could trade Backlund and keep Granlund not only because they play alike but because Granlund's contract is less. I think he's the kind of guy you keep for your bottom 2 lines but can probably be replaced from within the organization if need be.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Itse

I see the same problem in Granlund as I've always seen. Not fast or strong, not skilled enough. Overall a solid meh. Servicable filler in the lineup.

Would probably work better as a winger, but I don't see him being significantly better at that either.

This. He seems to have plateaued as well. Does he look any better this season in his call-up than he did last year in his call-ups? Not really. Any stronger, tougher on the puck? Not really. He starts off strong and then fades.

[Royle9]

Flames have too many 3-4th line serviceable plugs, Granlund falls in that bracket.
We need 1st and 2nd line players, and a #1 RW for sure

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

He's skilled. I watch him in preseason or the AHL and I see shades of good wingers like Eberle, Hudler, Cammalleri. I watch him on the penalty kill and his ability to read passes is very valuable, not unlike Frolik.

He is a terrible center.

This 100%

He has all the tools to be a good scoring winger, but isn't nearly strong enough to be a center.

I actually feel like when he gets sent back down this time that they should be transitioning him to the wing.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

This 100%

He has all the tools to be a good scoring winger, but isn't nearly strong enough to be a center.

I actually feel like when he gets sent back down this time that they should be transitioning him to the wing.

The Flames organization seems to have a lot of hardworking filler prospects/players like Stajan, Jooris, Grant, Elson, etc. and a lack of skilled players.

I agree that they should continue to develop Granlund on the wing.

[Bingo]

he's botched a lot of shooting opportunities in the past few weeks ... guys like Bennett are putting it on his stick and he's mishandling or misfiring. Probably just nerves, but that can't continue or they take a look at someone else.

[heep223]

Granlund is a decent depth guy but I think he's pretty overrated by a lot on this site. He's smart, he's a good forechecker, he's got a good shot and he's good on the PK. But he's not big or fast enough to play a checking role, and he's not skilled or fast enough to get into positions to use his shot in an offensive role. I don't think the positives outweigh the negatives.

That said I think he is a decent replacement for Backlund.

[Harry Lime]

Two guys that I've always thought would be better suited for the Eastern conference, Granlund and Raymond. The team that is in the thick of a playoff race, but in the most trouble in terms of injury, and the balance of their roster, is the New Jersey devils. They have a tonne of cap space, and have two big expiring contracts in Elias and Rutuu. They are also set on defense with a young and promising core.

I would try to send Raymond and Granlund to them for Josh Jacobs. An OHL right defenseman with all of the tools we are looking for, and a hard road to get ahead of those players already on the Jersey roster. I'd even take poor, beat up Ruutu to facilitate the deal.

That's my thin air proposal.

In terms of this thread, I would use Granlund as a lure to move a Raymond, Wideman, Russell, and garner a bigger return. Bill Arnold or Grant can come up and do the same job.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Flames have too many 3-4th line serviceable plugs, Granlund falls in that bracket.
We need 1st and 2nd line players, and a #1 RW for sure

Maybe at the moment.

But most of Bollig, Raymond, Jones, Stajan, Colborne, Jooris, etc. won't be here forever.

To be competitive, teams need to fill these roles cheaply.

I don't see Granlund being a top 6 player in the NHL. But if he continues to develop his defensive game, and if he gets a little stronger, he could become a good bottom 6 guy who has the capability to fill in the top 6 once in a while.

Like a poor man's Frolik.

[Stormchaser]

I sure wouldn't be hasty and start sending him back down yet. We have been developing this guy for years and should stick with him as he learns how to be a pro. Midway through next season would be a better indicator of what we have in Granlund.

[Itse]

He might do better on a team that's bigger overall. His lack of size wouldn't be such an issue.

[Samuelsson]

I really like him, but I guess that's just being sentimental as we drafted him and he's just one of them, a bit like Ramo, that a lot of us like to get behind. There's absolutely no harm in keeping him up here, as he's only going to get better, and he's already better than maybe 4-5 forwards on the roster.

[868904]

The one thing that really pisses me off about Hartley is his stubborn reward system. Yes, hard work and listening to the coach should be rewarded, but the reward has to reflect the skill set of the player.

Joe Colborne should not be on the powerplay. I don't care how hard he works, how respectful he is to the coaches, how much he loves the Calgary Flames. His skillset is not suited for the powerplay. He doesn't have a playmakers puck handling ability. He has size that allows him to win some puck battles in a static environment (board play), but in a dynamic environment (ie., off the rush or on the powerplay), he doesn't have the skills.

Granlund is a shooter, a sniper. He's proven it all throughout his junior and minor pro career. We've seen flashes of it in the NHL. He is a weapon that can be used on the powerplay. I don't know even know why Hartley "rewards" Granlund for his good play by putting him on the penalty kill. Reward him with more powerplay time cause that is the best utilization of this skill set.

The reward for doing what the coaches ask, shouldn't be simply powerplay time, it should be based on the skill set of the player. It shouldn't be, if Granlund plays well 5 on 5, then you give him more powerplay time. It should be, if Granlund can produce on the powerplay, then you give him more 5 on 5 time. That's how Hartley should be "rewarding" ice time.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by 868904

The one thing that really pisses me off about Hartley is his stubborn reward system. Yes, hard work and listening to the coach should be rewarded, but the reward has to reflect the skill set of the player.

Joe Colborne should not be on the powerplay. I don't care how hard he works, how respectful he is to the coaches, how much he loves the Calgary Flames. His skillset is not suited for the powerplay. He doesn't have a playmakers puck handling ability. He has size that allows him to win some puck battles in a static environment (board play), but in a dynamic environment (ie., off the rush or on the powerplay), he doesn't have the skills.

Granlund is a shooter, a sniper. He's proven it all throughout his junior and minor pro career. We've seen flashes of it in the NHL. He is a weapon that can be used on the powerplay. I don't know even know why Hartley "rewards" Granlund for his good play by putting him on the penalty kill. Reward him with more powerplay time cause that is the best utilization of this skill set.

The reward for doing what the coaches ask, shouldn't be simply powerplay time, it should be based on the skill set of the player. It shouldn't be, if Granlund plays well 5 on 5, then you give him more powerplay time. It should be, if Granlund can produce on the powerplay, then you give him more 5 on 5 time. That's how Hartley should be "rewarding" ice time.

Is Hartley really that good of a coach or did he just ride a hot team last year and a stacked Avs team ? Someone should of been fired by now for the special teams its ridiculous.