What can be done to create a winning culture?

[GGG]

I think winning culture doesnt really exist but effort level does. You can see hockey players who outwork other guys on a nightly basis and do more with less skill. When you have hard working guys on your team it rubs off on other players. This is what Daryl gets out of his teams. He convinces everyone to work hard. If you can find star players who always play hard I think you have a good potential for winning teams.

If their was one knock on Iggy it was that he didnt play hard om defense and I think that rubbed off on others. Maybe cliche but I think hard work is contaigous. So I would like to see hard workers brought into our team from winning or losing teams

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Flames should abandon "asset management" approach and turn to "building the team" approach instead. With "asset management" you manage the team as "portfolio of assets", trade based on value, and end up with a collection of players, who are good on paper, but altogether form an ecletic, shapeless and tasteless bunch of players without identity. The result is literally a portfolio of assets, rather than a capable well-built hockey team. This is exactly what happened in post-lockout Calgary. With "building the team" approach you manage the team as whole, you create an indentity and trade for a better fit, not for a better value, and end up with a well-built team of lackluster yet tastefully collected players. It should be like this, if you traded away a bad player who fit with the team for a good player who doesn't fit, it's a bad trade (Ference for Stuart). If you traded good player who doesn't fit for a bad player who does fit, it's a good trade (Drury for Warrener).

Two to Three years from now we should take this approach. Right we just need to aquire assets to manage. I think you need be competitive with your main pieces in pace before you can build the identity with the Yelles, Ferrances and Warreners.

[Dion]

Trade our roster for the Bruins roster

[FAN]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think winning culture doesnt really exist but effort level does. You can see hockey players who outwork other guys on a nightly basis and do more with less skill. When you have hard working guys on your team it rubs off on other players. This is what Daryl gets out of his teams. He convinces everyone to work hard. If you can find star players who always play hard I think you have a good potential for winning teams.

I don't know why some are denying the existence of a winning culture. GMs talk about it, players talk about it, coaches talk about it. Fact is it's hard to keep up the effort or care when the team is losing. You have to have something to work for and when your team isn't expected to win and your team doesn't win, it's easy to throw in the towel. Alternatively, you can become the underdog: the kid not expected to succeed who drives himself to prove everyone wrong. But that kid isn't telling himself that he's a loser. He's telling himself that he's a winner and everyone is wrong about him.

That's why I think winning culture matters. Competitive players thrive on the pressure. When guys know they are expected to win and have to win it's easier to be energized for a game knowing that you all you need to do is to step up and play your game. It's about pushing each other to work harder and get better, but there has to be a goal in mind and that goal isn't the #1 overall pick.

[jeffman]

Originally Posted by GGG

Two to Three years from now we should take this approach. Right we just need to aquire assets to manage. I think you need be competitive with your main pieces in pace before you can build the identity with the Yelles, Ferrances and Warreners.

Yeah I agree. If you look at recent cup winners they had the core of young players that they drafted or built their team arond a skilled player eg getzlaf perry crosby Mallon stall toews Kane Keith Marchand bergeron chara. The character vets were added in later through depth trades and free agency signings like pronger guerin hossa madden recchi Kelly etc.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by GGG

Two to Three years from now we should take this approach. Right we just need to aquire assets to manage. I think you need be competitive with your main pieces in pace before you can build the identity with the Yelles, Ferrances and Warreners.

I disagree. I think you need to build identity from the start. You always need players like Yelle & Ference, they are great character players for winning teams, yes, but they are also vital for helping shape young players on rebuilding teams.

This is why I am very much in favour of adding guys like Ference & Nystrom via free agency.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by FAN

I don't know why some are denying the existence of a winning culture. GMs talk about it, players talk about it, coaches talk about it. Fact is it's hard to keep up the effort or care when the team is losing. You have to have something to work for and when your team isn't expected to win and your team doesn't win, it's easy to throw in the towel. Alternatively, you can become the underdog: the kid not expected to succeed who drives himself to prove everyone wrong. But that kid isn't telling himself that he's a loser. He's telling himself that he's a winner and everyone is wrong about him.

That's why I think winning culture matters. Competitive players thrive on the pressure. When guys know they are expected to win and have to win it's easier to be energized for a game knowing that you all you need to do is to step up and play your game. It's about pushing each other to work harder and get better, but there has to be a goal in mind and that goal isn't the #1 overall pick.

Maybe I should rephrase. A winning culture exists but I think it exists as a result of winning and not on the makeup of your team or coach.

[FlameZilla]

Alright, I'm mega bored. How can we construct a winning team from the ashes of our current lineup?

Of our current lineup, we need upgrades in the players listed in red. The players who I feel are good enough but are playing in a role that they aren't suited for are in blue.

This is my projected lineup based on what we currently have:

Tanguay Stajan Cammalleri
Baertschi Backlund Stempniak
Glenncross Horak Hudler
Reinhart Jones Jackman/McGrattan

Giordano Wideman
Brodie Sarich
Butler Cundari/Breen

Ramo/Berra (unknown quantities)
MacDonald

In my eyes we don't have a winning lineup because our team is unbalanced and poorly structured. We have an overload of 2nd line LWers: Cammalleri, Baertschi, Hudler, Glenncross. Some of these guys could deputise on a top line, but without a top line C or RW we're essentially rolling out 2 fairly weak 2nd lines as our top 6. We have 1 serviceable top 6 RW in Stempniak. Backlund is a serviceable 2nd line C and Horak works well on the 3rd line in any position.

On D, Giordano & Wideman make a decent 2nd pairing. Sarich I like as a bottom pairing guy, but he's been overused since we have no other decent-sized D me to clear the crease. Brodie is ideally a 2nd pairing guy but I do see higher upside there if he is paired with a monster shut-down first-pairing guy.

My point here is that we have a few cogs that would work in a winning team (_______ denotes an ideal player for the position in question). Red denotes a player that is functional in that position but that I'd rather upgrade.

1st line: LW: Cammalleri (or Hudler/Tangs) C: _________ RW: __________
2nd line:LW: Baertschi C: Backlund RW: Stempniak
3rd line: LW Glenncross C: Stajan RW: Horak
4th line: LW: Reinhart C: Jones RW: Jackman
Extra: McGrattan

1st pair: L: Brodie R: ______
2nd pair: L: Giordano R: Wideman
3rd pair: L: Butler Sarich
Extra: Cundari, Breen

Goalies: Who knows??!

In my eyes we need to ditch 1 or 2 of Tanguay, Cammalleri or Hudler & replace them with a legit top line C & RW & top pairing D, ideally all of them with some size. That should be easy enough to do, eh...?

Ideally we want 2004 versions of Vinny & Iggy on our top line & Shea Weber on D. Get on it Feaster!!

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

One of the key things about the original turnaround was bringing in proven winners with a lot of character - like Yelle and Warrener.

That needs to be a priority again. I think Hudler was a start - but they need more guys that are coming from winning organizations.

Stephen Yelle in particular has never really been replaced on this team.

It was others, as well. Gelinas was another one. Leopold had won Frozen Four. Drury, even though he wasn't around long, but was worth getting Warrener. Conroy was a big part of it, too.

As controversial as Button was, he was right about one thing when he took the GM job. He wanted to alter the culture of losing. That started by moving out guys were part of previous regimes: Stillman, Bure and others.

Then after Sutter took over the GM reigns full time, he started imported players from losing organizations, like Toronto and Florida. Mediocrity became the norm after '05. So, it was either get knocked out of the 1st round or miss out on the 8th spot. That led to missing out on higher draft picks, eventually to the situation the club found itself in this season. It was just a repeat of the way things were during the 90's. The end result was that star players were moved out, one by one. Sound familiar?

Here are the major differences b/tw then and now:

1.) During the 90's, there was the currency issue.
2.) With Daryl at the helm, multiyear contracts with NTC's were handed out like candy.

To build a winner, those without winning attitudes have to be identified and sent packing. They have to be replaced with by those who want to be part of building something.

[mikeecho]

I spent the day with Craig Simpson a few years ago and he talked at length about the difference between a winning culture and a losing culture based on his experiences with Pittsburgh and Edmonton back in the late 80's.

In Pittsburgh, he talked about how much of a losing culture they had. Veterans constantly hazing rookies and embarrassing them in public, players refusing to listen to coaches, veterans refusing to go out with younger players, no work ethic in practice, players ratting each other out to coaches, coaches afraid to come in the dressing room, veterans not coming to practice, etc...

When he got traded to the Oilers in exchange for Coffee, he was told by Pittsburgh that the team needed to give up some skill to bring in an established winner like Coffee to take over the room and change the culture from the ground level.

Simpson kept in contact with some guys in Pittsburgh and they told him that the minute Coffee arrived, that he took the Oilers winning culture and imposed it on the Penguins.

When Coffee got to Pittsburgh it took him all of the first game to have a melt down. He stood for the anthem and saw a young Penguin with something shaved in his hair standing on the ice. He asked the guy standing beside him why they let players embarrass the team and the jersey by doing garbage like that. When the guy told him that they did it to the young guy as a prank, Coffee supposedly went ballistic. After the game he shut the door and told them he was a winner and wasn't going to tolerate that [insert expletives here].

That was the beginning of the change for Pittsburgh. The new guys felt like they were part of the team, most of the vets felt like they had to prove themselves to the new boss, and those that couldn't cut it were moved on.

On the flip side, when Simpson got to Edmonton, he was immediately welcomed by Messier. Messier told him he could call any of the vets at any time if he needed anything. He also told Simpson what the team and players expected from him on the ice, in the room and in the community. The one thing that he said really struck him was the expectatation to treat practices like games. No dogging it ever.

Gretzky then met him and told him he didn't need to find a place to stay because he was going to live at the Gretzky home until he got on his feet in Edmonton. A month later on Christmas Day, Gretzky woke him up and told him to get dressed because they had work to do. They spent the rest of the day handing out presents at the children's ward of the hospital.

It made me sick to my stomache as an Oiler hater, but everything about that team was about being a winner. It helped that they had a great roster, but a lot of their success was driven by guys at all levels of their roster playing above their skill because of their commitment to the team and their mission to be great.

In terms of what the Flames need to do, it's hard to say as I'm obviously not in the room to know where they are in terms of culture. Judging from the bits and pieces you do hear, I suspect that they need a Captain who brings a pedigree of winning and will lead in the room as well as on the ice. Not just on the ice.

I'd love to see the day where Roger Millions tweets out who is on the ice for the optional skate and hear names from the core leadership as opposed to just rookies and guys who have been relegated to the press box.

When a guy like Jagr stays on the ice until the wee hours to perfect his game, that speaks to a guy who wants to win. When the Flames leaders are the first ones out of the rink as I've heard, that tells me they probably finished where they deserved to finish the last few years.

The stuff we've heard or seen in the past (Hanowski being left at the rink by himself, or Brett Sutter getting arrested for drunken disorderly conduct when the vets get them boozed up and then ditch them) sounds like the Pens from the 80's and that's gotta stop. Leaders need to be making sure this stuff is under control.

That would be a huge step in the right direction.

[Dx54]

We need a hockey team.

[PlayfulGenius]

It'd be awesome to draft a player like Toews that pretty well comes in and takes over leadership right away...I guess that's a bit much to ask, but perhaps Feaster and Co get lucky.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by GGG

Maybe I should rephrase. A winning culture exists but I think it exists as a result of winning and not on the makeup of your team or coach.

I still disagree with that. Winning is easy. The hard part is how you bounce back from defeats and failures. You want guys on the team who sees Iginla's departure and takes upon themselves to step up their game and take on more responsibility. You don't want guys who sees Iginla's departure as time to look for their own exits. It has to be management on down.

Culture can be changed when you have winners on board. When Scotty Bowman joined the Red Wings he wanted to put in a more defensive system and he didn't do it by buddying up with Yzerman. Bowman went straight after Yzerman to the point where Bowman apparently spread rumors that Yzerman was about to be traded so Yzerman would buy into his system along with others. Bowman was the proven winner who let everybody know he was running the ship and lackluster effort and defensive play won't cut it on his team whether you're a rookie or Steve Yzerman. Yzerman was a winner who didn't know how to win and he had to shape up or ship out. Yzerman shaped up.

People look at the Penguins and Blackhawks and think years of losing and high draft picks was all it was. It wasn't. Most of the guys who were there for the losing years were shipped out and along the way they added guys who were proven winners and had won the Cup before or been to the Finals. The Bruins did things a different way but they shipped out a lot of guys too and brought in a guy like Mark Recchi and coincidentally they are again in the Finals after bringing in a guy like Jagr.

[Phanuthier]

Great post mikechoo! Nailed it - we were successful when we had those guys (Rhett, Nilsson, Yelle) but replaced them with guys like Bouw, Butler etc. There is no "No 1 C!!!" or "puck moving D!!!" ... while both are important, the key, really, is winners in the dressing room. As someone who has never been a player there, I find it really hard for them to understand who are the guys like Rhett, and who are the guys like Butler.

What we need isn't the guy who can throw the big hit, we need the guy who is willing to take the big hit to make a play. What we need isn't the guy with the big shot, we need the guy who is willing to throw his body out and block that big shot. Right now, I'm not sure all of the players on are team are those guys. I'm glad its changing from the "after the game, players go home to their sub-urbs and tuck their kids in at night" and I think we're getting some winners in Sven, Backlund, Max Reinhart, Gio... but I think we got a few losers to ship out first too.

[FlameZilla]

Amazing story about Paul Coffey. That guy was a player that stood out to me when I was really young. Best skater I ever saw. Bouwmeester's skillset reminded me of Coffey, even back in his draft year. I think Bouw had/has the tools to become a player in that mold, but his attitude & mental composition isn't anywhere near that of the HOFer Coffey.

I think the closest definition to 'winning culture' is having a collection of players with great attitudes like those hated ’80s Oilers. We had similar characters in MacInnis, Nieuwendyk & Lanny etc.

I don't think these young players necessarily need to come from winning teams. Monahan, for example, looks like a kid with a great attitude which would contribute to a winning team, but unfortunately he's on a by bad team in Ottawa. That should in no way hamper our desire to pick him.

Our best bet at building a team like that is through the draft. The Oil picked Coffey 6th overall in 1980. Here's our opportunity to pick someone of the same ilk.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

The Simpson/Coffey story was great. Not sure what the leadership situation was with Iggy at the helm, but it was very disappointing to hear the story of Hanowski getting left behind after the rest of the team left for lunch. I don't think Coffey or Messier would have let that happen.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

I think the closest definition to 'winning culture' is having a collection of players with great attitudes like those hated ’80s Oilers. We had similar characters in MacInnis, Nieuwendyk & Lanny etc.

When you think of it, Lanny had been around losing A LOT before landing in Calgary. He was in Toronto for the Harold Ballard era, during the darkest days of the Leafs franchise. Then he was traded to the Colorado Rockies. Enough said.

Think this also proves that there's this love of the game aspect and the desire to win the Cup. More recently, and it was over 2 decades ago, but there examples like Alexandre Daigle. The guy had this great talent and ability, but later admitted that he didn't even like hockey. It makes your head spin. The old timers must not be able to grasp the concept. For them, it was a privelege to be in the NHL. Now with the money and all the distractions, some of them don't have to will to contribute and win.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

The Simpson/Coffey story was great. Not sure what the leadership situation was with Iggy at the helm, but it was very disappointing to hear the story of Hanowski getting left behind after the rest of the team left for lunch. I don't think Coffey or Messier would have let that happen.

I was very disappointed when I heard that story. The guy makes his NHL debut with the team, and is left by himself? Who the hell does that? Obviously none of us know the whole story and weren't there to see it. But I was embarrassed as a Flames fan when I heard about that. Good on Conroy for flipping out and shame on the players who did that.

The leadership on this team is a disgrace. I hope no captain is named until someone actually steps up and proves themselves to be a leader. I just don't see that in any of our players.

[mikeecho]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Great post mikechoo! Nailed it - we were successful when we had those guys (Rhett, Nilsson, Yelle) but replaced them with guys like Bouw, Butler etc.

I'd add Dave Lowry to that list from the 2004 run. Seemed like a no b.s. kinda guy who'd go through a wall to win, and wouldn't accept anything less from any of his teammates.

[FAN]

Anyone got a link to the story about Hanowksi being left behind? I missed it.