Your Solution For Fixing The Flames

[thymebalm]

My solution for fixing the Flames this season is injecting Backlund back into the roster. He's our main possession positive player, plays the toughest position on the ice and would allow for Jooris and Monahan to seek a little bit higher ground.

Nobody needs to be traded, veterans shouldn't be indicted for such a small sample size on the road and coming off injury. It may have temporarily hurt our mojo, but it's not like these guys have permanently forgotten how to play hockey over their time on the IR.

This season, the things we need the most to right the ship is to have Mickis back, and then to have another defender come in and steal Engelland's roster spot. That's about all we can hope for in year 2.

Next year is a different story. We may be able to add names like Poirier, Bennett, and Ferland to the roster full time, should their development dictate so. In doing so we'll add some serious offensive threats that should likely only get better over time. We'll inject Wotherspoon next year, and probably Culkin the year after that.

In the meantime, just play hard, keep the work-ethic mentality and identity strong, and wait for the bounces to change.

[Locke]

Apparently the key is to fire those useless bums Burke, Treliving and Hartley and to hand the keys to the whole shootin' works to Don Cherry.

Two things could be certain:

1. That would be entertaining if nothing else.

2. They'd still be better than the Oilers.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

So what you guys are saying is that it's just a gigantic coincidence that our stats evened out at the exact same time that the vets came back? Because that's what I'm reading.

I just don't agree with that.

Anyway, it's 2 perspectives. I'm not too concerned with who's right, I'm more concerned with a W tonight to stop the slide, however it comes. If Hiller dresses as a forward to screen the goalie I'm all for it if we can somehow score on the PP.

Gigantic? Nope. Is it coincidence that with these same vets playing earlier in the season we were winning?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Gigantic? Nope. Is it coincidence that with these same vets playing earlier in the season we were winning?

Worth noting too that the guys who are struggling now were starting to struggle before Colborne, Stajan and Raymond returned too. The difference is that Jooris pulled one last rabbit out of his hat against Arizona and Wideman was able to outscore his mistakes in a couple games.

Of the guys who were on fire in November, the only ones who really managed to maintain their offensive production into December have been Gio, Hudler and Gaudreau. Jooris, Monahan, Brodie, Wideman and Russell have not produced offensively during this streak. Three of those guys are still young players, I would note.

[djsFlames]

Stajan, Colborne and Raymond killed the chemistry the team had going, whether the players subbing for them were regular scorers or not. Everybody on the roster played into that belief.

When guys came back there was expectation of more 'help' which they never received cause they did nothing for us, whereas at least the kids were generating chances and had jump.

[Cflames_12.5]

I was worried about this after flying out of the gates. Winning is fun and it raises your expectations, sometimes to high. My solution get your expectation in check where they were at the beginning of the season. We've seen the highs and now the lows. This team plays with a ton of heart and passion. They are moving in the right direction. Keep calm and trust the rebuild. I am enjoying watching this guys play and in 2 or 3 more seasons they will become a force in the NHL.

[Toonage]

We really didn't start winning until the call ups arrived. We're basically the team that started October right now, minus Backlund. November arrived and with Colborne, Stajan, Raymond & Backlund out we were winning more consistently. I know the players we just sent down weren't scoring, but that doesn't mean they didn't help create the time and space for the guys who did.

[Enoch Root]

How does the weaker goaltending we've been getting lately factor into the 'coincidence' of the team losing when the vets came back?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Toonage

We really didn't start winning until the call ups arrived. We're basically the team that started October right now, minus Backlund. November arrived and with Colborne, Stajan, Raymond & Backlund out we were winning more consistently. I know the players we just sent down weren't scoring, but that doesn't mean they didn't help create the time and space for the guys who did.

Yes and no.

If you consider our seven game series idea, we were 4-3, 4-1-2, 4-3 and 5-2 in our first four series. The team was fairly consistent until this rather ugly 0-6-1 series. The difference in record pre and post injuries was razor thin, and really amounted to little more than the fact that we lost a couple overtime games in October and won a couple in November.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Stajan is a 4th line centre doing what that kind of guys does - win defensive zone faceoffs and not be a defensive liability.

Stajan is the best paid 4th line centre in the NHL. He is being matched up against the guys who are playing for the league minimum due to the cap filling a roster spot, borderline goons... It is not enough for him to be able play these guys to a standstill. He is getting the real easy matchups that he should be dominating. Having Bouma and Raymond/Colborne on his line looks like it should be the best 4th line in the.....

If it was playing against last years 4th line Westgarth, McGrattan and Galliardi they would be expected to score every 2nd shift.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Toonage

We really didn't start winning until the call ups arrived. We're basically the team that started October right now, minus Backlund. November arrived and with Colborne, Stajan, Raymond & Backlund out we were winning more consistently. I know the players we just sent down weren't scoring, but that doesn't mean they didn't help create the time and space for the guys who did.

No. Setoguchi and Sven were on line 4, not with the guys who were scoring. Same with Reinhart, Knight and, for a lot of games, Ferland. How did that create time and space for Brodie, Jooris and Granlund (the guys who have dried up scoring wise)?

In order to make the correlation = causation you need to establish the underlying reason the lack of one player and the addition of another made the team worse, hopefully without making up facts or relying on intangibles.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Stajan is the best paid 4th line centre in the NHL. He is being matched up against the guys who are playing for the league minimum due to the cap filling a roster spot, borderline goons... It is not enough for him to be able play these guys to a standstill. He is getting the real easy matchups that he should be dominating. Having Bouma and Raymond/Colborne on his line looks like it should be the best 4th line in the.....

If it was playing against last years 4th line Westgarth, McGrattan and Galliardi they would be expected to score every 2nd shift.

Why do you assume 4th lines face 4th lines from the other team? Do other coaches see our 4th line and say "hey here's a good chance to get our 4th line out"? Or do they say "hey - the 4th line is out - let's put our top line out"?

[Stanley]

It's simple...score goals...bury their chances.

Also, opponents are exposing our D joining the rush, causing us to turn it over and giving up odd-man rushes.

Thing is, without having the D actively join in on the rush, we don't have much offense.

I'd also like to see Ferland back up, and perhaps even Sven. Not that they're the solution, but they provide a different look than what we're currently icing. Raymond has been downright useless.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Stajan is the best paid 4th line centre in the NHL. He is being matched up against the guys who are playing for the league minimum due to the cap filling a roster spot, borderline goons... It is not enough for him to be able play these guys to a standstill. He is getting the real easy matchups that he should be dominating. Having Bouma and Raymond/Colborne on his line looks like it should be the best 4th line in the.....

If it was playing against last years 4th line Westgarth, McGrattan and Galliardi they would be expected to score every 2nd shift.

I really think Stajan and Raymond have hit their best before date. Either trade them or send them to the AHL. There have been a few young guys outplaying them so far this year.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Why do you assume 4th lines face 4th lines from the other team? Do other coaches see our 4th line and say "hey here's a good chance to get our 4th line out"? Or do they say "hey - the 4th line is out - let's put our top line out"?

Don't know how all the coaches think but Hartley is not trusting Stajan to play against the other teams top 6.

I would think that if Stajan was as defensively responsible as he was last year and to to the level that the Flames extended him for 4 years Hartley would be trying to get Bouma and Stajan out against other teams top 6 and ease up on Monahan / Jooris / Grandlund's match ups.


Maybe Hartley is using this season as an exhibition year to get the current 3 guys some NHL miles on them.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Ok, you claim the problem is that we are losing right now because the vets suck. You mark a list of vets you want to get rid of. One of those vets is a guy who has been among our better players recently, and you think getting rid of him improves the team?

Well that's causal oversimplification and that's the words you attempted to put in mouth, which is not factual. I stated that some of the veterans (Bollig, Stajan, Setoguchi, Jones and to some extent Raymond) are being outplayed by some of the youngsters and deserve to lose their positions. Some of the other veterans have been down right horrendous (Diaz and Engelland) but the youth on the blue line has yet to have a chance to make an impression. The other vets have been excellent (Giordano, Hudler, Wideman) to pretty good (Russell, Glencross). There are plenty of reasons we are losing right now but I see the biggest one being the chemistry that was working so well has been altered.

And you're telling me *I* need to gain insight? Your argument is nonsensical precisely because you are ignoring the present to focus on a cherry-picked version of the past. If David Jones was ineffective as a player right now, then suggesting he should be replaced right now would make some sense. As it is, your argument is little different than suggesting we should sit Giordano because he struggled at some point in the past too.

Nice reducto ad absurdum.

The fact that you ignored the points entirely is noted. It is also completely unsurprising.

Points were not ignored. They answered succinctly by your own flawed circular logic. You could take any one of the points you made, change the names, and the answers would have been the same.

Ok, lets play ball. What makes you say this, aside from the fact that you have a clear bias towards wanting the kids around? Is it just because he was providing energy? We're already getting that in spades. It obviously isn't for offensive influence. So what makes a guy with 60 pro games in his life ready to be an every day NHLer, right now?

This is what is referred to as psychogenic fallacy or what some classical literature fans call a bulverism. The results speak for themselves but because it does not fit with your particular narrative you attempt to claim some nonsensical bias in the person you are arguing with and stating they have a psychological imbalance to think in such a fashion.

Fact of the matter is we all have particular biases. The one I have the greatest affinity to is a bias to winning and being entertained. Forgive me for having such ridiculous expectations for what I invest my spare time in. When I see a team that is both entertaining and winning I want to see that group continue to play together until they falter. Seems like a logical plan for most, but I guess some don't see it that way and instead have some wild plan for when the parts come together.

I'm not going to crucify you for your biases but I will ask some questions of you. What is the wild plan any way? I mean, you say that Ferland's 60 games isn't enough development, so what is the right number? 100 games? 200 games? Where is that number imprinted on prospects anyway? I don't see how a specific number of games is required to make the next step. Some need more, some need less. Some player's games just translate really well to the nature of the NHL, so it doesn't make sense to there is a required number of games needed in the minors before promotion.

Also, how are you measuring energy, because in the last four or five games it has been sorely lacking in the lineup. We've been outworked consistently for a good portion of the some of the recent games, which has coincided with the return of some of the vets. The broadcast teams have mentioned it, so it is not anyone's bias coming into play. It is an observation from multiple sources.

What the team lost was unsustainable shooting and save percentages. And the guys who lost it are still here. Jooris, Wideman, Russell, Brodie. All with zero goals in the losing streak. All still playing with the same guys they were before, so you don't even have the lineup disruption card to play.

The shooting percentage has also gone to a level that is low and unsustainable. You are completely discounting the efficacy of the fore check and pressure applied by the young guys who had more speed and determination. When the third and fourth lines are out there and getting on the defense it forces them to make plays early and results in turnovers which result in better scoring opportunities and a higher shooting percentage. When the fore check is not as effective, because the players are slower or tentative, the turnovers are less and the quality scoring opportunities go down. Hence the shooting percentage and scoring going into the toilet. Put the speed back in the lineup, or get the veterans giving the same effort as the young guys, and the results will return. I know it isn't an advanced stat explanation, but it is the reason for the results we've seen.

No, you're making assumptions about what I want to see. My argument is that knee-jerk reactionary moves do not make the Flames better. I don't buy into the vapid rhetoric of "OMG WE"RE LOSING TRADE EVERYONE CALL UP EVERYONE OH GOD DO SOMETHING" that we are seeing in PGTs and several threads right now. I have known all along that a rough patch was coming, and I have known all along that people would have serious problems dealing with it when it got here.

Funny, never said any of the above. Rarely participate in the PGTs because of the senseless arguing on both sides. On both sides there are fans that get carried away, yourself being one of them. It certainly doesn't take a self-proclaimed expert to recognize that a rough patch was coming. They happen to every team every year. It's like predicting the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

The irony is that we are losing despite consistently matching or outplaying our opposition. We are being undermined by mistakes, and I would note that most of those mistakes are coming from the guys you don't have tagged for demotion/trade/waivers.

This isn't news. I even pointed out in a thread that we are better than our record. But that doesn't change the fact that some of our veterans have been outplayed by our young players and their contributions have not been as good as some of the kids. Is it too soon for some of them? Possibly. Possibly not. I think the fact that they have outplayed the veterans and contributed to a team that was competitive with the best and damn difficult to play against speaks volumes about their readiness.

[Jay Random]

As most of you probably know by now, I am old and crusty and full of trivia about ancient history. My ‘solution for fixing the Flames’ goes all the way back to the 80s:

Do nothing until the losing streak is over. Wait a few extra games while some of the marginal players get a chance to show they can still produce results. Then trade a few guys to bring in a bit of extra scoring, a bit of defence, and a bit of experience.

In 1986, Cliff Fletcher did nothing while the team lost 11 in a row. A couple of weeks after the streak ended, he started working the phones, and made a 3-for-3 trade that brought in Joe Mullen (and some help for the third D pairing). At the deadine, he made another trade that brought in John Tonelli. He managed to do this by trading players who looked decent at the time, but whose numbers were actually inflated by playing in front of the Flames’ offensive blueliners.

This is a trick that Billy Beane has often used in Oakland: put players in situations where they will produce padded offensive numbers, then flip them while their perceived value is high. With the Flames, it meant that a guy like Eddy Beers looked like a pretty good scorer when he had that defence to feed him the puck; but once he went to St. Louis, he basically fell off the face of the earth.

At that time the Flames had no star forwards to speak of, except an aging Lanny McDonald. (Their biggest star, Kent Nilsson, had been traded for draft picks the previous year. It didn’t look like a rebuild at the time, but basically it was one.) Nobody scored more than 30 goals in a Flames’ uniform that year, despite how bad the goalies were in the 80s. But they had Al MacInnis, Gary Suter, Paul Reinhart, and Jamie Macoun, four defencemen who could all generate good offensive numbers and make the forwards in front of them look better than they were. That might sound familiar to some of you young ’uns nowadays.

The upshot was that Trader Cliff managed to get a four-time Stanley Cup winner and a repeat 40-goal scorer for a bunch of mid-level players. I wouldn’t expect Treliving to get a haul like that, but he will certainly have a chance to improve the team by trades once this ghastly slump is over. The key, in my mind, will be to get a good, responsible #5 D to lighten the load on the top 4. Smid was such a player in the past, but he looks like he’s getting past it now, even when not injured.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by New Era

Nice reducto ad absurdum.

That's rich coming from someone relying on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy himself. I can play the Latin game too.

It is noted that you completely failed to defend your argument that Jones should be demoted because of last year.

Points were not ignored. They answered succinctly by your own flawed circular logic. You could take any one of the points you made, change the names, and the answers would have been the same.

Except they weren't. I will repeat them, since you seem to have failed to read the questions the first time:

a) How removing three players in Knight, Baertschi and Ferland with a combined 0 goals caused our offence to stop scoring.
b) Why we have been much stronger in terms of puck possession and generally outplayed our opposition despite losing
c) How removing Knight, Baertschi and Ferland caused Wideman and Russell (especially) and even Brodie and Gio (at times) to fumble the puck much more often.
d) How a guy like Josh Jooris, despite playing with the same two linemates (Hudler and Gaudreau) and getting the same ice time, completely stopped scoring.

Or should I just assume you're not going to answer these questions, again?

This is what is referred to as psychogenic fallacy or what some classical literature fans call a bulverism. The results speak for themselves but because it does not fit with your particular narrative you attempt to claim some nonsensical bias in the person you are arguing with and stating they have a psychological imbalance to think in such a fashion.

I'm not the one trying to demote a player who is playing well because I have invented this narrative that other players who have not shown they are better are, in fact, better.

Fact of the matter is we all have particular biases. The one I have the greatest affinity to is a bias to winning and being entertained. Forgive me for having such ridiculous expectations for what I invest my spare time in. When I see a team that is both entertaining and winning I want to see that group continue to play together until they falter. Seems like a logical plan for most, but I guess some don't see it that way and instead have some wild plan for when the parts come together.

Then go bandwagon for LA or Chicago if the reality that the Flames were never going to sustain their habit of making third period comebacks is too difficult for you to stomach. I really can't help you if you were not ready when reality came and smacked you upside the head.

I'm not going to crucify you for your biases but I will ask some questions of you. What is the wild plan any way? I mean, you say that Ferland's 60 games isn't enough development, so what is the right number? 100 games? 200 games? Where is that number imprinted on prospects anyway? I don't see how a specific number of games is required to make the next step. Some need more, some need less. Some player's games just translate really well to the nature of the NHL, so it doesn't make sense to there is a required number of games needed in the minors before promotion.

Where did I say that "60 games isn't enough development"? I love how you are so woefully unprepared to defend your arguments that you consistently rely on misdirection and strawmen. Of note, you used a strawman here to avoid explaining what makes you think Ferland is the kind of player who "develops better in the NHL than the AHL". It is thus noted that, for probably the sixth or seventh time since we began this, that you have failed to support your own argument.

Also, how are you measuring energy, because in the last four or five games it has been sorely lacking in the lineup. We've been outworked consistently for a good portion of the some of the recent games, which has coincided with the return of some of the vets. The broadcast teams have mentioned it, so it is not anyone's bias coming into play. It is an observation from multiple sources.

I've got news for you friend. We've been outworked for good portions of nearly every game this year. The difference, as noted multiple times now, is that we aren't coming back from our typical two-goal deficits anymore despite leaning on the very same guys to try and bring us back.

The shooting percentage has also gone to a level that is low and unsustainable. You are completely discounting the efficacy of the fore check and pressure applied by the young guys who had more speed and determination.

Discounting? No. I just realize that losing the seven or eight minutes a night Knight, Baertschi and Bollig played is not why Monahan and Jooris aren't scoring anymore.

When the third and fourth lines are out there and getting on the defense it forces them to make plays early and results in turnovers which result in better scoring opportunities and a higher shooting percentage. When the fore check is not as effective, because the players are slower or tentative, the turnovers are less and the quality scoring opportunities go down.

Except that we have generally possessed the puck more, generated more scoring chances and generated more shots on goal since those vets came back. We have, in fact, taken 15% more shots on goal during this eight game losing streak than we did the eight games prior, and we have given up 8% fewer. It strikes me that if your argument reflected reality, the reverse would be true.

Hence the shooting percentage and scoring going into the toilet. Put the speed back in the lineup, or get the veterans giving the same effort as the young guys, and the results will return. I know it isn't an advanced stat explanation, but it is the reason for the results we've seen.

I get tired of repeating the words "confirmation bias", but your argument doesn't even hold water against conventional stats, never mind advanced stats.

Funny, never said any of the above. Rarely participate in the PGTs because of the senseless arguing on both sides. On both sides there are fans that get carried away, yourself being one of them. It certainly doesn't take a self-proclaimed expert to recognize that a rough patch was coming. They happen to every team every year. It's like predicting the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

And yet, you are completely shocked by the fact that we started losing, and have invented reasons that are not supported by logic or statistics to explain it.

This isn't news. I even pointed out in a thread that we are better than our record. But that doesn't change the fact that some of our veterans have been outplayed by our young players and their contributions have not been as good as some of the kids. Is it too soon for some of them? Possibly. Possibly not. I think the fact that they have outplayed the veterans and contributed to a team that was competitive with the best and damn difficult to play against speaks volumes about their readiness.

You keep saying this over and over, but have yet to actually demonstrate this to be true.

Newsflash: the kids who were outplaying vets are still in the lineup. The ones who weren't, aren't. The only one you have an argument for is Ferland, who was caught up in a numbers game. And if young guys like Jooris and Granlund and Gaudreau and Monahan and Byron aren't providing that spark, it would be pretty naive and rather egotistical to think Ferland is the missing piece.

[Resolute 14]

Oh, and if only we had Baertschi and Ferland on the bench watching tonight. The power of their minds would have prevented Hiller from giving up that softie!

Stupid Treliving.

[btimbit]

Team just needs Backlund back.

Byron could sit a game too. Needs to be giving 110% and has been hovering around 75% lately imo