So, please explain then to me how you would distinguish an "excuse" from a "reason"? I explicitly said the turnover is NOT an excuse because the team cannot nor should they depend on this to excuse their poor performances. But this stuff happens—it's something the Flames have to deal with, and I think the erratic differences in the quality of their play we have seen this season suggests that it's something they are possibly dealing with. Are we now simply expected to ignore the innumerable factors which will effect how a team performs from one game to the next, or from one part of the season to the next?
So you believe the new players and the new coach are the single biggest reason for the Flames failing to show up for those three games? Or as you put it, has more to do with it "than anything else".
That is quite a bold statement so I'm prepared to listen to your rationale but at face value it sounds more like an excuse than a legitimate reason IMO.
Remember the teams the Flames play also deal with change in personnel, injuries and travel too. Have you determined the Flames are facing greater adversity in these regards than their opponents? And even if they are, why should that translate into such a poor effort from the Flames?
I fully expect a few bumps in the road, such as players being unsure of where to be occasionally during a game. But at this point I'm not of the opinion that more familiarity is going to yield better results. It is going to take a rather significant change in the performance of several players IMO.
I'm not really looking at perceived effort, because I agree that some players (Hamilton, Hanifin, etc.) are smooth and don't look like they are trying as hard, and some use their brain as much as their feet (Monahan, for example) and still are in a good position offensively.
My issue with Janko is that he's big, with a long reach, can skate well, and has good hands (he has a bunch of scoring tools) and isn't using any of that - he doesn't drive the net much, he isn't distributing the puck very well, and he's not hip deep in net front scrums to try and bang one in.
It's his reach more than anything that I'd like to see him use more. It should allow him to have the puck on his stick more and get a few goals around the crease too.
So you believe the new players and the new coach are the single biggest reason for the Flames failing to show up for those three games? Or as you put it, has more to do with it "than anything else".
I hope he's right. The alternative is very very bad.
Bad hockey players, or a bad room that has already quit on another coach.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
Please allow me to be very skeptical with Smith in net. He's due for a decent game at some point again this year, so I'm really hoping it's now. A drubbing tonight will just perpetuate the constant 'ready to switch back?' I get every year out here.
Bright side: most people know Smith is terrible, so I've already been getting 'sorry for your loss' texts today.
If they win, I get to be funny - if they lose, they already know I know what happened. Benefits of the terrible view people have of the Flames out here I guess...
I'm really hoping for a solid game from Hanifin tonight. We've had quite a few rough games across the board back there, but Hanifin is a guy who's good game can make a world of difference tonight. I think we see a locked in Gio, I hope we see a smarter Brodie and Hamonic should be game-ready by now. Getting a solid game out of Hanifin will do wonders at keeping the Leafs away from Smith.
Hoping we finally see Dube crack it tonight. I have a feeling that as soon as that monkey is gone, that whole line starts feeling it. A lot of weaponry there that we could really use tonight.
So you believe the new players and the new coach are the single biggest reason for the Flames failing to show up for those three games? Or as you put it, has more to do with it "than anything else".
That is quite a bold statement so I'm prepared to listen to your rationale but at face value it sounds more like an excuse than a legitimate reason IMO.
Remember the teams the Flames play also deal with change in personnel, injuries and travel too. Have you determined the Flames are facing greater adversity in these regards than their opponents? And even if they are, why should that translate into such a poor effort from the Flames?
I fully expect a few bumps in the road, such as players being unsure of where to be occasionally during a game. But at this point I'm not of the opinion that more familiarity is going to yield better results. It is going to take a rather significant change in the performance of several players IMO.
I would think it's a mixed bag of reasons:
a. Going into the NYR game, the Flames were maybe guilty of reading press clippings and taking the Rangers lightly (correctly as it turned out). And they didn't really learn a lesson from that undeserved win (though there was apparently a players only meeting afterwards).
b. Even with that meeting I wonder if they looked at Montreal's roster and figured on another pushover (despite Montreal's record thus far). Then when they got smoked in the effort department early, they couldn't respond well.
c. Pittsburgh I thought they had really good effort off the hop, and were the better team right up until and even after Crosby's goal. But everything went against them in that game and they again wilted. I think they just got snowed under with every little event in that game.
The two comebacks in the Caps game may have been the best thing for this team all year. They know they have it in them, and they played well enough to win.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
So you believe the new players and the new coach are the single biggest reason for the Flames failing to show up for those three games? Or as you put it, has more to do with it "than anything else".
That is quite a bold statement so I'm prepared to listen to your rationale but at face value it sounds more like an excuse than a legitimate reason IMO.
Remember the teams the Flames play also deal with change in personnel, injuries and travel too. Have you determined the Flames are facing greater adversity in these regards than their opponents? And even if they are, why should that translate into such a poor effort from the Flames?
I fully expect a few bumps in the road, such as players being unsure of where to be occasionally during a game. But at this point I'm not of the opinion that more familiarity is going to yield better results. It is going to take a rather significant change in the performance of several players IMO.
To date, the Flames have only played 2 teams also getting accustomed to a new coach in the Rangers and the Capitals. By that marker, you could argue that the Flames are doing fine by comparison.
I think this familiarity and new system (at least, I hope) is a pretty big factor to some of the play we've seen recently. Starting the games behind I think compounds this greatly and starts allowing seeds of doubt to be planted. We don't have the goaltending NY and Washington do, so maybe we look at teams like NYI (5-4-1), Dallas (5-5-0), and Carolina (6-4-1) as teams that could arguably be facing the same adversity.
To see if my theory is backed by any goalie stats:
So you believe the new players and the new coach are the single biggest reason for the Flames failing to show up for those three games? Or as you put it, has more to do with it "than anything else".
That is quite a bold statement so I'm prepared to listen to your rationale but at face value it sounds more like an excuse than a legitimate reason IMO.
Remember the teams the Flames play also deal with change in personnel, injuries and travel too. Have you determined the Flames are facing greater adversity in these regards than their opponents? And even if they are, why should that translate into such a poor effort from the Flames?
I think the Flames have more adaptation to deal with than most teams, yes. Similarly so, the St. Louis Blues and the Carolina Hurricanes have also undertaken a higher-than-average turnover, and both these teams also appear to have been making adjustments
Quote:
I fully expect a few bumps in the road, such as players being unsure of where to be occasionally during a game. But at this point I'm not of the opinion that more familiarity is going to yield better results. It is going to take a rather significant change in the performance of several players IMO.
So, I did not see the Montreal and Pittsburgh games, but I did watch the game against NYR. Based on my viewing of this and reports of the other two the defensive zone breakdowns (the biggest problem with the team during this stretch) strike me as the product of struggling to adjust. And yes, I agree that a significant change in performance is required from several players, but I was encouraged by what I saw on Saturday. This does not look like an insurmountable hole to me by any measure.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
About to start the predrinks with jersey on at the usual Bay Street haunts. Always a great day to see the Flames live.
Last year was a great game. Lost in overtime. It cost me about $100 as when it went to overtime I was betting everyone around me $10 the Flames would win. Our section was having a blast that overtime.
For some reason I never think of Varlamov but yeah. I doubt he will be a UFA by the end of the season though. Same for Talbot, unless he's determined to play elsewhere. Edmonton pretty much has to re-sign him because who else will go there? They lose him and they aren't getting Bob, Rinne (who they are apparently talking to) or Varlamov.
Rinne's has the best numbers so far, but behind Nashville and he's 36.
Talbot would actually be a good pickup. I still like him, and it would be nice if he helped kick Edmonton some.
Varlamov - I suspect he gets re-signed. I don't think Grubauer is at number one status yet. I guess it depends on who they are targeting at other positions.
