March 28 - 30 Thoughts

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

If you come back with Gully next year, you better have SIGNIFICANT roster turn-over, because he can't coach the group he has now. He can't make use of the good players he has now. I think he should be gone, but if he returns...then Tree better be making HUGE roster changes.

I don't think it would matter what roster changes are made. He would find a way to get the least out of that group too and it would be another underachieving season.

Hopefully Treliving has already made his mind up and is quick to clean house on the coaching staff.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by stang

Thats not a rich get richer thing... its a building your team correctly thing.

Pretty sure at least 2 of the teams you listed have more cap space then Calgary (or Edmonton next year)



Could be an issue, but then keeping a bruiser in the PB would be like keeping one on the bench. Its a waste of a spot.

just a figure of speech... helps the good teams hurts the bad teams

[SilverKast]

Originally Posted by stang

Exactly

I had never even thought of the concept even remotely, but the more I think about it the more I love it! More options, more excitement!

[The Boy Wonder]

Gio, hamonic and tkachuk should be wearing letters for this team.

Monahan, while a good player, simply isn’t a vocal leader, and also certainly doesn’t lead by example. And Brouwer is just a joke that he was wearing one to begin with but looks even more foolish after the season he had.

GG needs to go,

And I know it’s an unpopular opinion but you probably need to look at moving Gio this offseason if the right package and young player are available.

But I’m resigned to the fact that they probably trade Dougie and Bennett and get a couple draft picks that bust in return and we continue inthe same mediocrity spiral we’ve always been in since the 80s

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Gio, hamonic and tkachuk should be wearing letters for this team.

And I know it’s an unpopular opinion but you probably need to look at moving Gio this offseason if the right package and young player are available.

So which is it?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Gio, hamonic and tkachuk should be wearing letters for this team.

Monahan, while a good player, simply isn’t a vocal leader, and also certainly doesn’t lead by example. And Brouwer is just a joke that he was wearing one to begin with but looks even more foolish after the season he had.

GG needs to go,

And I know it’s an unpopular opinion but you probably need to look at moving Gio this offseason if the right package and young player are available.

But I’m resigned to the fact that they probably trade Dougie and Bennett and get a couple draft picks that bust in return and we continue inthe same mediocrity spiral we’ve always been in since the 80s

There is zero chance that Dougie gets moved unless the move brings back a massive over payment of immediate help for the Flames.

If you can get another team to give until it really really hurts then you think about doing it.

but you don't trade a under 25 year old top pairing right hand defenseman to recoup a mystery box lottery pick unless he's at the end of a contract, you can't resign him, and you're going to turn over your whole roster.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I still think GG is not getting fired. I do think you are going to see some serious turnover with this roster instead.

Avatar bet?

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Gio, hamonic and tkachuk should be wearing letters for this team.

Monahan, while a good player, simply isn’t a vocal leader, and also certainly doesn’t lead by example. And Brouwer is just a joke that he was wearing one to begin with but looks even more foolish after the season

We are only privy to what we see on the ice, part of what makes a leader occurs off the ice and in the dressing room. For that reason I think it's pointless to weigh in on who should be wearing letters when we only have half the information. Besides, you can be just as much a leader with or without one.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There is zero chance that Dougie gets moved unless the move brings back a massive over payment of immediate help for the Flames.

If you can get another team to give until it really really hurts then you think about doing it.

but you don't trade a under 25 year old top pairing right hand defenseman to recoup a mystery box lottery pick unless he's at the end of a contract, you can't resign him, and you're going to turn over your whole roster.

I certainly agree with you... I just don’t have faith that the flames will agree as this organization screws up more often than not if given the chance.

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Toonage

So which is it?

I said you have to look at trading him... but if you keep him he is captain for sure. Both are possibilities.

[IamNotKenKing]

I don’t agree that the vets didn’t necessarily lack respect for Gully due to the stick toss “grading”.
They were asked a specific question as a final question, which was asked in a joking manner, and they answered.

[stang]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

just a figure of speech... helps the good teams hurts the bad teams

So be a good team

[Calgary4LIfe]

Flames have no confidence any longer. Score against them, and they will respond with panic it seems.

How many comebacks have the Flames made this season when down in the 1st? How about the 2nd? How about the 3rd? Not many. Though you don't want to ALWAYS have to make a comeback, the fact of the matter is that sometimes the other team does score first. Flames show little resiliency.

Why?

1) Leadership - I also maintain that the real leader of any team is the coach. He is the one that allocates ice-time, line-up changes, line combinations, player usage/opportunity, system implemented, etc.,.

2) I think the low shooting percentages and lower scoring games overall is playing with their heads a bit. Now, of course all things being equal, a system that gets more shots on net is better than a system that gets less shots on net. However, not all things are equal, and not all shots and opportunities are equal, even if labeled as such (i.e. High Danger chances). There is contested shots, shots that force the goalie to move, shots that have more time and space, etc. I don't think that the Flames get as many of those as the advanced metrics make you believe they do. I think that is why there is a low shooting percentage, and it gets compounded when players start to lose confidence in themselves.

3) Defence defence defence. This is not a team full of Robyn Regehrs that will play air-tight defence. This is a team full of thoroughbreds out there that can skate, transition the puck well and generate a heck of a lot of offence. Being in the bottom 3rd of the league in points by defencemen is a complete travesty. With the exception of Hamilton, ALL the other defencemen have had down years under Gulutzan. Hamonic and Stone are having their worst statistical seasons ever. Sure, they don't provide THAT much offence, but an extra 10 points from them each goes a heck of a long way in the win/loss column.

4) Defence - the goalies have been upgraded (yet again) and the results are not significantly different. The Flames are not able to play sound defence. I don't know why people think they play better defence now than under Hartley's tenure, but they don't even though the defence is SIGNIFICANTLY upgraded. They allow more shots/game than under Hartley, and FFS do they allow a lot of breakaways and other 'cringe worthy' moments out there.

What does this team have going for it? That's the question I have to ask myself.

I look at the roster and I see a good young core. I see a decent supporting cast around them, but one that needs a couple of upgrades as well. I see a WONDERFUL defensive corps. I see good goalies - goalies that not only 'not lose' a game for you routinely, but goalies that can actually steal games. The back-ups have done fairly well all things considered, especially when you look at the historical out-put that this team has had from back-ups.

This team is simply not a 'dangerous' team - they don't get enough breakaways, 2on1's, 3on2s, etc. This team does not generate enough high quality uncontested shots. This team doesn't seem to make the opposing goalies work that hard even in 40+ shot games. Meanwhile, this team gives up too much the other way.

There are moments where this team looks absolutely dominant out there. Other moments where they allow teams like Buffalo, Arizona and most of all, Edmonton (which is so inept this year) to dominate them.

In it inconsistency, and I believe it is derived from the above. A rather poor system. Poor leadership (coach). It has bred a lack of confidence. I look at a team that down the stretch, generally worked hard, but caved-in during games and became a somewhat panicked bunch. Under Hartley for the most part, this team had a certain swagger about them. They had confidence. I don't see any confidence in this team, and I think it then makes them look like a team without resolve, or a team lacking in effort. This is not to say that the Flames have had games in which they lacked effort - they most certainly appeared that way to me as well, and that to me is a lack of preparedness, and a lack of accountability.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Avatar bet?

No way, I am not making an avatar bet on something I want to be wrong about. lol.

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by stang

This part is very interesting

Love it, makes too much sense so it won’t happen

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by 868904

Getting sick of this narrative of the lazy core. I haven't seen a lack of effort. It's a complete lack of leadership from the coaching staff. They have no idea how to deal with adversity and adjustments in game and now out of game with the current losing streak. They have no feel for the game.

Players are soldiers, they go out and and just do. Coaches are generals and commanders, they plan, strategize and make adjustments.

There are no adjustments or not the right adjustments being made under this coaching staff.

I get it, GG is a nice guy, the media loves him cause he's always accommodating, but enough with this character assassination of the Flames players. If you watch this team over the past two years, its' evident and clear where the problems are.

Also, in 2004, the "leader" of that team was NOT Iginla, Kipper or Regher. The true leader who steeled the troops was Darryl Sutter. The captains and assistant captains and veteran provide a certain level of leadership, but the coaching staff has to provide a higher and more important level. This is how it is in EVERY organization, sports or not.

Doesn’t seem like they know how to motivate either. GG put on a show for the cameras a couple times but I’ve yet to see him motivating and barking orders on the bench. Just that blank stare

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by 868904

I get it, GG is a nice guy, the media loves him cause he's always accommodating, but enough with this character assassination of the Flames players. If you watch this team over the past two years, its' evident and clear where the problems are.
.

Right. The character assassination of GG is fine but don't you dare suggest the players are part of the problem.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

They went the velvet glove approach and the team simply is not mature enough to thrive in that setting. Hartley might have been a hard ass but the team had no choice but to respect the firm hand. He was “coach Hartley” and now we have “Gully” getting grades for his stick toss.

It's interesting, as the concept of a "velvet glove approach" sounds like something that the younger players on the team would typically be looking for if we're to believe modern day stereotypes. However I've seen it suggested in the media and through people I know who have access to the team that it was the older veteran players that had issues with Hartley and wanted a change to a players coach. Apparently the younger players were committed to Hartley (despite some of the discipline he handed out) and are not necessarily embracing the current approach.

[BagoPucks]

Interesting point about Adam Mascherin in FLA. I would love the flames to put in an offer and see what happens. I wouldnt want us to trade a draft pick though.

[browna]

Hardass or velvet glove approach, they’ll be players on both sides of it. Each player responds differently to different things.

My thing is that the players, maybe these players in particular, maybe having had seen the other side and who may not like the treatment of buttons that were getting pushed, have to also trust that what the coach is telling them is in their best interests, and has worked in the league.

GG doesn’t have that pedigree of success to fall back on there as a head coach, so the effect of players tuning out the coach is real easy to do.

Hartley did have success in a pre cap, different NHL era, years back, but after presiding over a hall of fame line up winning the cup almost 20 before landing in Calgary, winning a couple rounds the next year with an Avs team, and then making the playoffs only once since then, in Atlanta, and getting swept, and that was 6 years prior to him coming here.

The players need some comfort conciously or subconsciously, that the coach has had success with their coaching and motivational techniques, not just as a one off successful season but through sustained playoff appearances and rounds won, and recently, in the league.