[GDT] Flames vs Sabres - 5:00 - SNet 360

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

What can be done about that? Look at the Flames this year. They paid a hefty fee for Hamilton and brought in Frolik, yet they regressed significantly. If you suck, you suck. You just have to improve your roster and work on areas of weakness in order to improve.

I think anyone who's played on a losing sports team can attest to it though. A player might not risk a diving play or injury in dirty areas if there's no reason to. I will admit I've never been paid to play, but I've been in some crappy locker rooms and eventually as the season goes on, people become more "meh" to a game when they know it's just a matter of time until the season is over.

Management failed to address the goaltending situation this year. That's who has to answer for it.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I feel as if certain individuals (Justin Schultz) are being championed as the entire Oilers team and certain individuals (Giordano?) are being championed as the entire Flames team. That's where I have a problem with the idea of a losing culture. It's not losing that's making a losing culture, it's losers.

I think its more about a lack of accountability. I mean Hall was the best player on a team that won the Memorial Cup two years in a row. He wasn't a loser back then.

But when you play on a team that struggles and there is no accountability to anything if you're part of the in-crowd (non-Russian #1 picks, Ex-Oilers in the front office), you just start to give up at improving.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

He's getting criticized because he came to CP and poked at the fanbase.



This idea that you aren't a true fan if you want your team to lose for a better draft pick is ridiculous. These games don't matter in the long run. Next year no one is going to remember the March 3, 2016 game against Buffalo (heck most remember it next week). If losing helps the team get to a place where they have meaningful games - then I'm all for it. I'm not actively cheering for them to lose, but when they do - I realize its better for them in the long run in all likelihood.



Both sets of fans (the pro and anti tankers) want the same thing in the end - For the team to play in important games again as soon as possible. You're not a better fan than the next guy - no matter what you want to happen.

I understand the reasoning and I don't agree with you. Also I don't think that one fan is "better" than another. I just think that cheering for your team to lose hockey games to get an extra chance at moving up 2 draft spots is way more ridiculous than cheering for your team to win hockey games.

Go flames, I hope they stomp the stupid Sabres tonight. If that results in an 8% chance of winning the lottery vs an 11% chance of winning the lottery, then so be it.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I feel as if certain individuals (Justin Schultz) are being championed as the entire Oilers team and certain individuals (Giordano?) are being championed as the entire Flames team. That's where I have a problem with the idea of a losing culture. It's not losing that's making a losing culture, it's losers.

What if Hall is drafted and developed by the Blackhawks? Is he still a loser?

Losing teaches and molds someone into a loser over the course of a half decade.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Poe969

Not every team is the oilers. A lot of successful teams hit the bottom before they became good and they didn't turn into the oilers. Now for this to happen, you have to try to win at the beginning of the year. If the Flames are completely out of it like now, I want them to get 30th, if they're close to the playoffs I'd like them to win, if they're in the playoffs I'd like them to win.

I'm more like the hawks fan who wanted them to draft Toews first, not the oiler fan who wanted them to draft Hall, Yak, RNH, McJesus... Not every team will turn into the oilers.

This is true. You can tell the difference in the types of fans, just like you can tell the difference in the types of people with their money. There's people who look at long term trends and make smart, slow investments. And there's people who buy into scams trying to get rich quick.

If you look at hockey long term, it's clear that there's overall cycles with some variance. Just like some rebuilding teams do not becoming competitive right away (ie Edmonton), there's also some teams that do not collapse right away (ie, Detroit). In between there's usually a healthy cycle of about 7-8 years between being competitive and being out of the playoffs. It's only natural and makes sense.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Management failed to address the goaltending situation this year. That's who has to answer for it.

What was the alternative? Even with hindsight, what was realistically available for the Flames before the season starts?

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by heep223

I understand the reasoning and I don't agree with you. Also I don't think that one fan is "better" than another. I just think that cheering for your team to lose hockey games to get an extra chance at moving up 2 draft spots is way more ridiculous than cheering for your team to win hockey games.

Go flames, I hope they stomp the stupid Sabres tonight. If that results in an 8% chance of winning the lottery vs an 11% chance of winning the lottery, then so be it.

That's a poor display of the lottery. Remember, a last place team has three odds, and at worst get the 4th overall.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Interesting reading all the talk this year about tanking and Matthews points and inverse standings, when just a year ago such things were shameful and embarrassing and a dark spot on the great and glorious act of being a hockey fan.

Funny how that works.

You are right, but this season has very little amount of positives associated with it. Lets face it this year has been mostly a disappointment(so far) for the Flames, and Flames prospects in Stockton. Fans are looking for hope, and try to stay positive. Winning the lottery generates a hope for a better future. It is also the reason why people are grasping at anything positive from players we brought in(Jokipakka, Shinkaruk, Pollock, and even Backstrom), and prospects up with the club(Nakladal, Wotherspoon, Hathaway, and Ortio).

I as a fan watch games for the excitement and that winning feel. This season I realise that we already lost, so might as well go for broke. It somewhat feels like a team pulling a goalie, no one cares if the game end 3-2 or 5-2; however, with the goalie pulled you get a higher chance of winning(even though it won't be this season).

[JJ1532]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Glad they're playing balls out right now.

Are they though? The mistakes we've been making over the last few games have been really poor. A too many men call which led to the PPG for Boston to win it. Let leads slip against the Flyers and Sens with ugly periods(3-0 in the 2nd against Philly, Let in 5 straight in the 3rd against the Sens).

I think the effort has been extremely patchy of late. We've either played decent teams that have not had to play that well to beat us or pretty average teams that have outworked us.

This is why I'm so annoyed with our losing run. It's not the losing that bothers me, its the generally poor effort and constant mistakes from players you expect more from.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

What if Hall is drafted and developed by the Blackhawks? Is he still a loser?

Losing teaches and molds someone into a loser over the course of a half decade.

No it doesn't. The Oilers suck because they have a bad roster, not because of some ridiculous idea that there's a "losing culture". Their top defenceman is Andrej Sekera, and he'd be at best the #4 defenceman in Calgary.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by codynw

No it doesn't. The Oilers suck because they have a bad roster, not because of some ridiculous idea that there's a "losing culture". Their top defenceman is Andrej Sekera, and he'd be at best the #4 defenceman in Calgary.

Not sure how people can blindly ignore the losing culture. Their own coach freakin talked about. He said there has to be 10 guys in the room who have enough pride that they don't accept losing.

C'mon people. If the coach is calling the entire team out about their losing culture it's a thing that exists.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by codynw

No it doesn't. The Oilers suck because they have a bad roster, not because of some ridiculous idea that there's a "losing culture". Their top defenceman is Andrej Sekera, and he'd be at best the #4 defenceman in Calgary.

The Oilers themselves have mentioned the losing culture, so it most definitely does exist.

I recall Hall mentioning that they need to start pushing themselves more now that they have an improved roster and stop accepting losses.

When you go through years of losing and the coach patting their team on the back for putting up a good effort, that is a losing culture.

But one bad season does not mean you have a losing culture. Whoever mentioned that is an idiot.

[Benched]

i guess the debate is: if you 'throw' the last 20 games of a season, are you instilling a losing culture?

because if you are - then it's pretty clear you can't do it. the consequences are there to see and it's disasterous

if 20 games isn't enough time for 'loser culture to set in', or we have enough leaders who do care, so it won't set in - then why wouldn't you want the best chance possible to add a top prospect and organizational need?

11% vs. 8% as posted above...3% doesn't seem like much but it's almost 50% better odds.....that is significant.

and to the person relating this to personal finances, slow and steady or 'get rich quick'...I think 'get rich quick' is inaccurate, it's more like 'short term pain, for long term gains'...which IS a valid strategy.

[Poe969]

And it's funny how the losing culture that everyone talks about is the oilers culture. Yes that exists but it's not the "losing culture" it's more along the lines of the "oilers culture and way of life". And I don't think Hartley is going into the room and saying to let guys blow by them and score. He's most likely coaching like it was the beginning of the year, starting Hiller is probably questionable but maybe he's starting him because he dislikes Ortio or maybe he knows that Hiller is bad and he wants the team to play better team defense.

It doesn't look like it's even close to becoming acceptable to lose with the Flames so I don't think anyone needs to worry about a losing culture there.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by calgaryboy

Lineup here, lineup there. It really doesn ´t matter if you have Swiss emental cheese clown in net. Even the best possible lineup you can imagine would have lost with this ultracrap in net. That is huge shame for Flames to have this goalie even on a roster...... to actually play him??? That is even bigger shame.

So, I think a big part of the decision to play Hiller is also the hope of giving him opportunities to end the season on a high note. It honestly doesn't matter how many games Ortio plays to ride out the season, so long as he plays a bunch of them.

We tend to forget that coaches and managers form relationships with the players on their roster. As much as this is a business, as much as Hiller is not in their plans moving forward, I have NO DOUBT that Hartley and Treliving want the best for him. Playing Hiller in this game doesn't have any impact on the Flames this season AT ALL. But these remaining starts could mean a lot for Hiller.

All that said, this is a pretty silly thing about which to be outraged.

[saillias]

I have no idea what Hiller did to upset Calgaryboy so much, but I enjoy the rants

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by JJ1532

Are they though? The mistakes we've been making over the last few games have been really poor. A too many men call which led to the PPG for Boston to win it. Let leads slip against the Flyers and Sens with ugly periods(3-0 in the 2nd against Philly, Let in 5 straight in the 3rd against the Sens).

I think the effort has been extremely patchy of late. We've either played decent teams that have not had to play that well to beat us or pretty average teams that have outworked us.

This is why I'm so annoyed with our losing run. It's not the losing that bothers me, its the generally poor effort and constant mistakes from players you expect more from.

Did you see this team play in January?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

What if Hall is drafted and developed by the Blackhawks? Is he still a loser?

I don't think Edmonton Oilers Taylor Hall is a loser. Dude plays balls to the walls for a team that is awful for most of the season until they're pretty much eliminated. I don't blame him for stepping intensity down when his team is in 30th place despite him being a +. I don't see how he's different from a young Sakic or Iginla TBQH.

I do consider Justin Schultz a loser, because you can actively see the compete level fall off the map. That's different from Hall's season progression, which tends to be "play reckless" --> "play hard enough not to cost your team, but not reckless". Schultz's basically "show up to camp out of shape --> quit on every play". Another guy I consider a loser is Phil Kessel, again for how soft he plays that costs his team.

Losing doesn't breed losers. Not competing breeds losers. Losers do breed losing though.

[jayswin]

Wow, I view not believing in losing culture in pro sports to be on the same level as believing in flat earth theory.

[foshizzle11]

I am more annoyed with Treliving putting Hartley into this position. Maybe the message is to tank, ie play Hiller more than Ortio. I don't know.

All I know is that next year, we won't have these issues. I believe that BT will find someone who will be the bonafide numero uno. Everyone in the league knows Calgary is struggling with goaltending and we should consider giving up some of our younger prospects and picks to get someone good. Not just another backup.

I have faith.