Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Again, I remain bewildered by how petty and jaded some of you guys are about what looks to be a tremendous success story for both Kylington and the Flames. Smile. Be happy.
|
I don't know why I write walls of text on CP when I should be having a productive Friday morning, but here I go...
"We" are not jaded on the Flames' season or Kylington's success. We are jaded by the "matter-of-fact" claims such as:
"Kylington didn't force his way into the protection conversation last year, and he was left unprotected."
as if that has
nothing to do with the fact that he wasn't given a fair opportunity to play on the roster with a competent partner. The team lacked meritocracy last year, and that was a huge reason they missed the playoffs.
"management was happy to keep him out of the lineup so long as he was not a positive contributor"
Despite the fact that LAST YEAR's sub .500 Flames were 6-1-1 with Kylington in the lineup, you
insist that he was not a positive contributor. What even
is a positive contributor from the third pair defense position, typically with a possession black hole such as Mike Stone as your partner?
"I have always maintained that Kylington was not playing at the level he needed to in order to stay in the lineup,"
While you're welcome to maintaining your opinion, but I've always maintained the opposite. And now, when my observations are building validity, you're saying that "no, you were just wrong back then, but magically something changed"
My opinion was this... last year:
Valimaki was poor
Nesterov was useless
Kylington was better than both... yet somehow played less than either.
The idea that Kylington was not beating out two guys who were not net positive players... is just... active denial of the lack of meritocracy in place last year - and yes that includes Darryl Sutter who overplayed Monahan, Ritchie, Nesterov etc.
The team played better hockey with Kylington in the lineup, yet there was this insistence that it was despite him.
Kylington had strong games, and all it would take was one misplay,
which I wouldn't even characterize as an actual gaffe, to sit for the next month. Forget development, this quick hook isn't even how
veteran NHLers like Zadorov would deserve to be handled. Players need time in the lineup to get their timing, their pace, all of that up to speed and Kylington was not so much as given that.
"If Kylington had played better last year when he did play, he would have been in the lineup more often."
Chicken-and-egg. If he had played more often, in a role such as that with Chris Tanev, with a leash that actually existed, he likely would have visibly played better... last year.
"There was no intent to diminish his trade value"
Who said there was
intent?
It was a direct function of the team's actions. The actions you have been arguing were in the team's best interest.
" No one was holding Kylington back except Kylington."
Firmly disagree, and this kind of adamant framing of the past is why I'm still, as you state, being "petty". And you've made the same claims about Sam Bennett too.
Quote:
|
I don't know how it is that so many posters cannot see the incredible difference in his quality of play this year compared to any other time in his entire professional career.
|
Because it's not an actual difference in HIS quality of play. It's clearly the difference in his role, the quality of his partner, and the icetime that he has been afforded even when he HAS made the same mistakes
This is the same season Kylingotn was a healthy scratch in game 2, and logged 3 entire minutes in game 1. Are you telling me Kylington finally figured it out after that game 2 healthy scratch, and not before game 1? So from January 2019 to one fateful night eating popcorn in October 2021, all he needed was one moment to completely learn how to play hockey?
Absurd.
Are you not at least
remotely willing to accept that a player's role (icetime regularity, linemates, and leash length) play a part in
1) Their comfort level, awareness and sharpness on the ice
2) The confidence and assertiveness on the ice to make plays
3) The
impact of their mistakes and positive plays on the ice in terms of actual scoring events
?
"Kylington did not make that decision a difficult one last year"
Kylington did not have an
opportunity to make that decision a difficult one last year, because he was scratched
after strong games.
I'm not the one singing a different tune. It's the people pretending Kylington miraculously discovered how to play ice hockey
by sitting in the pressbox and then doing stuff during the
offseason he apparently had never done before. All because the coach told him to, even though the coach could have told him to do this stuff in the same games that Valimaki and Nesterov were doing absolutely nothing positive in.
If Bennett had been traded during the offseason you'd be singing the same tune about how his success was due to a "new mindset" in Florida, even though his turnaround was
immediate upon the change in role and opportunity.
The role and opportunity that you continue to deny have played a part in Kylington's success this year.
Again, this is the NHL. The same league where Gustav Forsling went from waivers to top pair in the same season.
That you can so vehemently deny that Kylington could have been doing this for the Flames if given this opportunity a year ago is what baffles me You keep saying he should have shown it with his play on the ice, yet he was never given a chance to, because he was never on the ice, especially away from a #7 defenseman (who is our #8 this year!). And he
wasn't given identical conditions to show his play this year either. He was given much better conditions this year.
Even going back to preseason THIS season
Kylington was great with Tanev
Kylington was, according to Treliving/Sutter, poor "towards the end of preseason"(when... he wasn't with Tanev and put on the 3rd pair)
Why is it such a non-starter for you to just consider that not all defensemen play their best hockey with sporadic minutes with flawed partners and a short leash from the 3rd pair?
That's what I don't get.
Kylington hasn't miraculously found his game. I watched him extensively in the AHL. I've watched every game he's played in the NHL. He's had some bad games,
absolutely. He's had gaffes, undoubtedly. He will this year, too. Every player has poor games. Every high-skill player WILL have gaffes.
It's about how much you weight the good versus the bad, and most people over-weighted the bad.
He's had games as far back as calendar year 2018 where he was doing all the things he does today, defensively or otherwise and wasn't rewarded in terms of icetime, partner, responsibility, longer leash, offensive draws with our star forwards... any of that.
There were games back then where Kylington was clearly the superior player
on his pair with Rasmus Andersson, and Andersson was the one being rewarded soon after with top pair ice time. There was no apparent logic behind it. Kylington had a game in 2019 with Dalton Prout as his partner where he was, unequivocally the best player on the ice for the Flames, in a game where Giordano and Andersson and Hanifin and Hamonic were all present. And if I remember correctly he was still scratched in favour of Oscar Fantenberg right after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
A lot of people only see Kylington’s great rushes and obvious offensive flair. They miss the stuff Sutter talked about just a couple pressers ago.
|
Personally I think a lot of other people only see Kylington's moments of losing an edge, getting walked playing too aggressively one-on-one, or misplaying the puck at the offensive blue, and they miss the excellent gap control, the strong stick positioning, the precise first pass to break out, the compete level along the boards... all the stuff he's been doing regularity since the very beginning.
I know Gaskal has used Erik Karlsson playfully as an amusing parallel, but the similarity isn't just the rushes and offensive skill. There's a definite similarity in how "bad" this style of player can look to the eye test. It reminds me of how Brodie was public enemy number one back in Gulutzan's final year.
The question should however not be how bad it looks when there's a breakdown.
It should be "does the good outweigh the bad" not "can the player eliminate the bad". The good and bad aren't mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately it's so easy to fixate on how bad this play or that play looked and have that colour your entire perception of a player.
