[News] Flames recall Pelletier and Duehr. Ritchie to IR

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Sorry but I was talking Mangiapane specifically. He got paid to score and anyone who plays with Backlund usually is benefiting from the high corsi numbers.

If he doesn't waste opportunities by shooting it into the chest of the goalie Everytime and actually does something we might have won last night.

I don't think the goalie is getting tired by having a puck hit him in the chest and not having to move much.

Backlund is perfect for a guy like Jakub.

Last three years ...

Backlund without Mangiapane - 53.02%
Mangiapane without Backlund - 54.08%

Backlund and Mangiapane together - 60.64%



Wouldn't just assume it's Backlund carrying it. Wouldn't scratch a play driving forward regardless of finish.

[Goriders]

Why bring Pelletier up to play in a checking role? I don’t see him as a checker. I get that you might want to shelter him. But what’s the point other than to give him a bigger paycheque for a bit.

I can see Duehr being put in that role. But Pelletier and Zary don’t seem like 3rd or 4th line guys.

[getbak]

Yeah, as others have said, Pelletier is likely up to play top-6 and Duehr is there to fill holes in the bottom-6.

I expect both to play on the trip. I'm sure Pelletier's parents already have a flight to St. Louis booked in the next day or two.

[keratosis]

Pretty good place to learn the NHL game in my opinion.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Last three years ...

Backlund without Mangiapane - 53.02%
Mangiapane without Backlund - 54.08%

Backlund and Mangiapane together - 60.64%



Wouldn't just assume it's Backlund carrying it. Wouldn't scratch a play driving forward regardless of finish.

I don't think it's a lack of finish for him he isn't creating high danger opportunities.

It's starting to look like we severely overpaid for him.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Why bring Pelletier up to play in a checking role? I don’t see him as a checker. I get that you might want to shelter him. But what’s the point other than to give him a bigger paycheque for a bit.

I can see Duehr being put in that role. But Pelletier and Zary don’t seem like 3rd or 4th line guys.

There is no such thing as a checking role in my opinion.
Everyone in the league needs to be a decent checker, but outside of that:

- Players who get a lot of defensive zone faceoffs benefit from additional space in transition
- Players who get a lot of offensive zone faceoffs will still see lost faceoffs result in needing to check to get the puck back. No one wins all their faceoff clean consistently.
- Players who have east-west skill will have expanded roles (powerplay) while players who don't can still contribute offensively 5v5

So what does it come down to?

"Do your linemates make you better and do you make your linemates better"?

Now when that isn't the case we write off lines as being "checking lines". But good teams don't have one checking line, they probably have four, or three plus one frustrating line precisely because it is lacking in checking.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

I don't think it's a lack of finish for him he isn't creating high danger opportunities.

It's starting to look like we severely overpaid for him.

Just isn't true.

Mangiapane's ranks for Flames forwards

individual scoring chances / 60 - 1st
individual high danger chances / 60 - 2nd
individual expected goals / 60 - 1st

Sorry man.

He's playing on a line that dominates, and he leads the Flames across the board in individual chances.

Just not going in.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

There is no such thing as a checking role in my opinion.
Everyone in the league needs to be a decent checker, but outside of that:

- Players who get a lot of defensive zone faceoffs benefit from additional space in transition
- Players who get a lot of offensive zone faceoffs will still see lost faceoffs result in needing to check to get the puck back. No one wins all their faceoff clean consistently.
- Players who have east-west skill will have expanded roles (powerplay) while players who don't can still contribute offensively 5v5

So what does it come down to?

"Do your linemates make you better and do you make your linemates better"?

Now when that isn't the case we write off lines as being "checking lines". But good teams don't have one checking line, they probably have four, or three plus one frustrating line precisely because it is lacking in checking.

So if you call it a shut down line you're good then?

I think there are certainly lines that are tasked with shutting down the opposition as their first task.

You don't write them off offensively, but that's their role.

Every one needs to check, and ideally create offence, but the first purpose of all lines aren't equal.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Just isn't true.

Mangiapane's ranks for Flames forwards

individual scoring chances / 60 - 1st
individual high danger chances / 60 - 2nd
individual expected goals / 60 - 1st

Sorry man.

He's playing on a line that dominates, and he leads the Flames across the board in individual chances.

Just not going in.

Guess that’s the point. Is he getting paid to shoot a ton of pucks into the goalies chest. Or a ton of shots into the net.

My take is he’s getting paid to be a finisher. If he was getting paid as a non finisher he’d probably be making half of what he’s making and we could afford to sign a finisher.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Guess that’s the point. Is he getting paid to shoot a ton of pucks into the goalies chest. Or a ton of shots into the net.

My take is he’s getting paid to be a finisher. If he was getting paid as a non finisher he’d probably be making half of what he’s making and we could afford to sign a finisher.

You don't score goals without getting chances. When you're not scoring with the chances you're either unlucky now or too lucky when the contract was signed.

Are you willing to bet that a career 16.1% shooter with a 9.8% shooting percentage this season is not going to recover?

Because taking a player that is generating chances out of the lineup when the team is struggling to score is insanity.

The question is the luck

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Just isn't true.

Mangiapane's ranks for Flames forwards

individual scoring chances / 60 - 1st
individual high danger chances / 60 - 2nd
individual expected goals / 60 - 1st

Sorry man.

He's playing on a line that dominates, and he leads the Flames across the board in individual chances.

Just not going in.

Thanks for digging into the stats they always help but I am sorry these don't match the eye test especially watching him last night. He is settling for shooting pucks into the goalies glove and chest the goalie isn't moving and neither is Mangiapane. He had ample opportunity last night to drive the puck to the net but choose to settle for shots into chest. Now if they come from the high danger area and bump his stats I have to go back and check but its not matching the eye test.

The team as a whole needs to drive the net and get into the greasy areas. Look at where Lindholm scored from, we need Mangiapane to get to those areas and work harder.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Thanks for digging into the stats they always help but I am sorry these don't match the eye test especially watching him last night. He is settling for shooting pucks into the goalies glove and chest the goalie isn't moving and neither is Mangiapane. He had ample opportunity last night to drive the puck to the net but choose to settle for shots into chest. Now if they come from the high danger area and bump his stats I have to go back and check but its not matching the eye test.

The team as a whole needs to drive the net and get into the greasy areas. Look at where Lindholm scored from, we need Mangiapane to get to those areas and work harder.

OK I'll stand down on stats then since they're inferior to what you think you're seeing.

Can you publish your eye tests going forward though so we can all know what's actually going on?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Bingo

OK I'll stand down on stats then since they're inferior to what you think you're seeing.

Can you publish your eye tests going forward though so we can all know what's actually going on?

I don't see the need to be rude? Was I rude to you?

I said thank you for the stats they help a bit but when you watch the game you can see he is shooting it right into the goalie the chances don't feel dangerous?

Are you watching the games? Do you feel the stat matches what he is putting out on the ice?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Why bring Pelletier up to play in a checking role? I don’t see him as a checker. I get that you might want to shelter him. But what’s the point other than to give him a bigger paycheque for a bit.

I can see Duehr being put in that role. But Pelletier and Zary don’t seem like 3rd or 4th line guys.

Because he has to be able to check or he can’t play.

All the teams that just plug rookies into the lineup and say “go get em kid” are fighting for Connor Bedard.

Playoff teams can have MAYBE one defensive liability who makes up for it with their offensive skill. Cole Caulfield in 2020 for example.

It all starts with your ability to check.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

I don't see the need to be rude? Was I rude to you?

I said thank you for the stats they help a bit but when you watch the game you can see he is shooting it right into the goalie the chances don't feel dangerous?

Are you watching the games? Do you feel the stat matches what he is putting out on the ice?

I was sarcastic ... stretch to say rude.

And fitting for a thanks for the stats but it doesn't match what I'm seeing response.

Isn't are you watching the games equally as sarcastic (rude)?

Honestly ... get used to it.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I was sarcastic ... stretch to say rude.

And fitting for a thanks for the stats but it doesn't match what I'm seeing response.

Isn't are you watching the games equally as sarcastic (rude)?

Honestly ... get used to it.

No I am not being rude or sarcastic I am asking you a question. Did you watch the game and feel the stats back up what he was doing?

Do you see a player who is having crap luck or is just not doing enough to get the puck into the greasy areas to get going?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

No I am not being rude or sarcastic I am asking you a question. Did you watch the game and feel the stats back up what he was doing?

Do you see a player who is having crap luck or is just not doing enough to get the puck into the greasy areas to get going?

LOL yeah you're just asking if the guy writing 80 game stories a season is watching game(S) and I'm to believe it was just an honest question with no sarcasm at all.

Save it man.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

No I am not being rude or sarcastic I am asking you a question. Did you watch the game and feel the stats back up what he was doing?

Do you see a player who is having crap luck or is just not doing enough to get the puck into the greasy areas to get going?

He's getting good looks, he's not doing much with them at all.

But I don't scratch a guy that is getting the looks, especially if he's a career 16.1% shooter having a 9.5% first half of this season on a monster play driving line.

Man I got "do you watch games" and "have you seen the standings?" in the same morning.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Bingo

He's getting good looks, he's not doing much with them at all.

But I don't scratch a guy that is getting the looks, especially if he's a career 16.1% shooter having a 9.5% first half of this season on a monster play driving line.

Man I got "do you watch games" and "have you seen the standings?" in the same morning.

Well I think you are putting way to much stock into the corsi stats and now the actual on ice product and results.

Against the Jets it looks like the Flames outplayed them and had more chances and it turns out we tied 7-7 in high danger chances.

Last night the shots are 47-20 and if someone looks at that they think we dominated Chicago, yet the high danger chances end 12-12.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

I don't think it's a lack of finish for him he isn't creating high danger opportunities.

It's starting to look like we severely overpaid for him.

For me, he's just not getting in tight enough to capitalize on rebounds and other garbage. Mang doesn't have that elite level skill to score consistently from where he's getting many of his chances imho.

I do think he's playing well enough now, but he's got to find a way to get in tight more regularly if he's going to get himself into the 25G range. It may also just be a bad year for the guy. I don't really feel like he's been severely overpaid in any way though.