[News] Flames Management Want to Create a "Black & Blue" Team

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

I really don't know how anyone who watched this team this year can argue that the Flames don't need to get bigger, stronger, and meaner (Black and Blue). The games the Flames won were against teams willing to run and gun with them and allow the Flames D to dictate the play. As soon as they played a bigger and stronger team that clogged up the middle, they were a terrible hockey team with next to no chance of winning. The Blues, the Coyotes, the Ducks, The Kings, The Red Wings, The Wild, The Sharks, etc. just completely walked all over this team. Most of the Flames wins came against Eastern conference teams and other floundering Western Conference teams not known for their physicality or defence (Oilers, Jets, Canucks, etc.).

We actually did OK against the Sharks and Wings.

St. Louis and Minnesota won the regular season series, but I wouldn't say we were walked all over. If anything, it was the PP and goaltending that did us in.

[ricardodw]

I find it interesting that in this thread there is so much agreement on my basic hockey philosophy that so many here have brutally mocked.

RGI was my attempt to un-emotionally quantify the players according to the Grit that is part of their skill set. It seemed to me that just to say that Edmonton was a soft team from looking at them would be the same as saying that they have 5 Gio equivalents on defense.

After coming up with a ranking system based on the admittedly weak stats available and doing an analysis on all the teams I came up that there are basically no successful teams that have more than 4 players with a low grit rating. 3 is better but some successful teams get away with 4.

The exception to this was the Lidstrom Red Wings.... If you have a 30 minute D-man as skillful as Lidstrom you can be successful with a lot of low Grit players on the team.

This is not a break through thought..... every NHL GM understands this and follows it to some degree. Vancouver understood that even though Hodgson and Raymond were talented players they was no spot on team that already had the Sedins.

In the Flames situation they have Gaudreau, Monahan, Brodie who by any measure are traditional Lady Byng candidates.

Frolik has traditionally been a softer (at least a no-contact) player but he bumped up his hit totals on the Flames

Backlund has grown/matured from a soft player to the point where he is not in the soft list as has Stajan.

A problem is that under Hartleys system Gio has cut his hits in half and has moved to being a borderline soft player (age and Injuries)

The Flames with Hudler and Raymond were clearly over the 4 soft player limit.

Having the 3 most important players on the team being soft and the next tier Hamilton, Gio Frolik being borderline put the Flames in a spot where they will not be successful as a team if they add Shinkaruk and/or Nylander.

That is not that too big a of a problem compared to where they were in 2012-13 were they were one of the softest teams .... maybe of all-time.

Under a more traditional NHL coach, possession, cycle, defense.... look for Poirier and Jankowski, Pribyl, Arnold and Wotherspoon to get a better look than they would under Hartley.

[IgiTang]

I don't think the Flames need to rebuild the team.

Infact, I don't think they're that far off from playing a heavier game.

If they can add a minimum of 2 more heavy game type players on the front end and a punishing Dman, I think they would be very close.

With Hartley gone, do we see the re-imurgence of the Ferland we seen vs Van in the playoffs?

Do we see Bollig get back to what made him desired in Chicago?

Also, a healthy, up to game speed Bouma can play a heavy, nasty game.

With Colborne starting to use his size more and Backlund becoming more a complete player, if the Flames added 1 or 2 more heavy guys with some skill, they would be in great shape to play that more "truculent" game.

[Enoch Root]

Ricardodw: it wasn't your basic point - that the Flames need to get grittier - that people disagreed with (though some may disagree with that as well).

It was the fact that you combined a bunch of random, unrelated stats into this silly grit index and then applied that made-up number to the Flames as if it were a hard and fast, well-proven rule.

Many of us agree that the Flames need to get grittier, harder to play against, bigger, meaner... however one chooses to describe it.

However, that in no way, shape or form, legitimizes your made-up stat.

[lazypucker]

We will need to sign Wideman to an extension - he will be our enforcer so that we won't get pushed around by the refs...

[Point Blank]

Lol ricardodw

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Ricardodw: it wasn't your basic point - that the Flames need to get grittier - that people disagreed with (though some may disagree with that as well).

It was the fact that you combined a bunch of random, unrelated stats into this silly grit index and then applied that made-up number to the Flames as if it were a hard and fast, well-proven rule.

Many of us agree that the Flames need to get grittier, harder to play against, bigger, meaner... however one chooses to describe it.

However, that in no way, shape or form, legitimizes your made-up stat.

Yeah it was never the actual fact that people had issue with - it is the way that he continually tries to deliver that point in ridiculous ways.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

I really don't know how anyone who watched this team this year can argue that the Flames don't need to get bigger, stronger, and meaner (Black and Blue). The games the Flames won were against teams willing to run and gun with them and allow the Flames D to dictate the play. As soon as they played a bigger and stronger team that clogged up the middle, they were a terrible hockey team with next to no chance of winning. The Blues, the Coyotes, the Ducks, The Kings, The Red Wings, The Wild, The Sharks, etc. just completely walked all over this team. Most of the Flames wins came against Eastern conference teams and other floundering Western Conference teams not known for their physicality or defence (Oilers, Jets, Canucks, etc.).

The Jets are certainly known for their physicality. The Wings, Sharks, Coyotes, Wild are not.

I have yet to see any evidence that correlates "black and blue hockey" or even size with winning. Only anecdotes and more anecdotes, which is why I take issue with Burke's comments.

Meaner, yes. I would like to see the team stand up for themselves and each other more, like we saw a few seasons ago. But I worry that management will try to make this team into the Kings/Ducks instead of the Hawks, because their core is never going to be like those teams. The Flames need to work with their speed, skill, smarts and mobile puck moving d-men to craft their long term strategy.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

We actually did OK against the Sharks and Wings.

St. Louis and Minnesota won the regular season series, but I wouldn't say we were walked all over. If anything, it was the PP and goaltending that did us in.

The fact of the matter is though that this team cannot win against teams that play big, heavy, defensive games and the majority of the good teams in the West play that.

The Flames needs to add probably 3 pieces to get there. 2 forwards (not goons, skilled guys who crash and bang) and 1 D (stay at home, hard-hitting, clear the front of the net).

In a dream world the Flames somehow get Lucic and Backes and trade for Hamonic. Now I know that is not going to happen, but one can dream.

[Izzle]

RGI in thread?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

The fact of the matter is though that this team cannot win against teams that play big, heavy, defensive games and the majority of the good teams in the West play that.

The Flames needs to add probably 3 pieces to get there. 2 forwards (not goons, skilled guys who crash and bang) and 1 D (stay at home, hard-hitting, clear the front of the net).

In a dream world the Flames somehow get Lucic and Backes and trade for Hamonic. Now I know that is not going to happen, but one can dream.

I thought it was interesting that at the Fan Fest this year one of the questions in the session I saw was "who is your least favorite team to play aginst?". Gaudreau answered St. Louis, describing how big and heavy they were to play against. Just one small anecdote, but I did get the feeling they were in the head of our best player and it maybe impacted his effectiveness against them.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

RGI was my attempt to un-emotionally quantify the players according to the Grit that is part of their skill set.

Can you give a brief run down of RGI again please?

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by heep223

The Jets are certainly known for their physicality. The Wings, Sharks, Coyotes, Wild are not.

I have yet to see any evidence that correlates "black and blue hockey" or even size with winning. Only anecdotes and more anecdotes, which is why I take issue with Burke's comments.

Meaner, yes. I would like to see the team stand up for themselves and each other more, like we saw a few seasons ago. But I worry that management will try to make this team into the Kings/Ducks instead of the Hawks, because their core is never going to be like those teams. The Flames need to work with their speed, skill, smarts and mobile puck moving d-men to craft their long term strategy.

The Blackhawks are a big and physical team. Not sure where the notion they aren't is coming from.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Can you give a brief run down of RGI again please?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

The Blackhawks are a big and physical team. Not sure where the notion they aren't is coming from.

Could it be that notion comes from the facts that they were the third lightest team and threw by far the fewest hits all year?

[Red]

Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle

The Blackhawks are a big and physical team. Not sure where the notion they aren't is coming from.

Yup this comes up often. The Hawks are in no way a small team.

Flames need to get bigger, they were physically dominated by pretty much every team. They don't have to be a huge team, but at least get some size to make it average. Right now they are likely the softest team in the NHL.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Could it be that notion comes from the facts that they were the third lightest team and threw by far the fewest hits all year?

The Hawks are full of big and dirty players. Drop the useless stats and just watch them play.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Red

The Hawks are full of big and dirty players. Drop the useless stats and just watch them play.

Lol. I do. You must do it better. What a silly argument.

Because we have Ferland, Bollig and Bouma are the Flames physical?

[Ashasx]

Useless stats like average player size and hits per game?

Objective, easily-understood team metrics?

[Red]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Lol. I do. You must do it better. What a silly argument.

Because we have Ferland, Bollig and Bouma are the Flames physical?

If you want to debate then let's. But no need for your LOLs...

Who on the Flames D can intimidate like Keith, Seabrook or Hjalmarsson? That's half their D. We have Engelland. Smid hasn't been a regular.

And they have plenty of muscle at F. And not just the 4 minute a game guys like we have. Who in the Flames top 6 can take a hit and dish one back?

They don't back down. Watch their battles with LA in the playoffs.