[PGT] Canucks 5 Flames 3

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Dion

I think it's a bit early to give up on Bennett but at the same time I would suspect Tre is getting calls and listening to offers.

It's not giving up if you get something you covet in return. I just have no idea what that would be.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I was very clear in saying the points all count, and they don't need to apologize for being good at 3 on 3 and shootouts, but that a team's record in 60 minutes is an indicator. That's not being contrarian.

You know what you are doing.

And you're saying this on a night where (despite the result) we out-played and significantly out-chanced the other team over sixty minutes.

I'm not understanding what you're getting at, at all aside from doing what you usually do.

There was no reason for you to bust out " by my count the Flames are 4 wins, 7 losses and 4 ties" and ramble on about gimmick points and cautionary tales of being out-played over sixty minutes on a night where we dominated most of the game.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Hahaha! What?!

Bartkowski is a sub-par player, but one thing he is not is slow. He is a terrific skater.

This was a frustrating game. The Flames owned the Canucks and should have blitzed them, but Maarkstrom was fantastic. First star on a night he allowed three goals.

Disagree. I sit up in the PLs and you can see when Bartowski is going to get beat before it even happens. Slow foot speed does not mean a slow skater. Bartkowski gets turned around routinely. Takes him too long to get going. Forward routinely get a step on him and beat him.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Major Major

It's clear as day that GG, much like treliving, is not result driven in his decision making. That is, after all, why they were both hired. And if he is ever to be fired and tre gets to hire another coach, that coach will also be process driven.

And out of that comes rolling 4 lines, easing rookies in, not adjusting to a risky offensive style when down, all things that are maddening when looked at through the fan lens. But there is a reason to operate this way, and it is 100% organizational. When you call for a different coach for these reasons, you're really asking for a whole new hockey ops team.

Re: bolded

The problem is that it's factually incorrect to say he's exclusively process-oriented. His decisions on skaters have been strongly influenced by chance results - goaltending and shooting luck - case-in-point Bartkowski himself was credited by him as a reason for our ten game win streak, when the underlying numbers as well as qualitative evaluation of Bartkowski's play showed that outside of maybe one decent game, Bartkowski was as much a tire fire in that winning streak as he was after that streak. His roster management decisions tend to fly in the face of the on-ice product and have more to do with whether the team is winning or losing.

From an X's and O's perspective, Gulutzan is an intelligent guy. But it's false to suggest that his decision-making as a whole is not result-driven. IF anything, the problem is that his decision-making WRT the roster is based on results rather than process - our fourth line, or for instance the Stajan-Brouwer PK pair, have been bailed out by goaltending in the past, so he assumes they'll be bailed out again. Or Versteeg picking up team-leading PP goals scoring on shots that had no business going in most of the time last year.

Even this idea that Kulak is "better" this year is mostly a myth. He hasn't had an ugly pizza down the middle yet - which to some extent is a chance result, not a process, because overall he has played at not too far above the same level he did last year. The save percentages and on-ice shooting percentages have changed, the underlying numbers and the on-ice poise and decision-making are not too much better (but maybe and naturaly slightly better in a small sample size). Kulak should have been Engelland's partner in the playoffs last year, if Gulutzan is to be considered process oriented. More importantly, in the playoffs, concepts like rolling four lines and three pairs HAVE to be thrown out the window. It's seven (*four) games against the same team, do-or-die. You have to trust the process... but that means riding your best players, not thinking regular season results will translate for your worst players.

Otherwise, it just seems like Gulutzan plays favourites with his former players and veterans regardless of growing samples of poor performance.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Flames played well but Markstrom played better. Not much you can do there.

...

Now, let the hysteria ensue

How many of the five Canucks' goals did Markstrom score?

[Meers]

I didn't realize Markstrom could play so well. He stole this one.

No need for the Flames to hang their heads. If they play that way they'll win most nights.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Dion

I think it's a bit early to give up on Bennett but at the same time I would suspect Tre is getting calls and listening to offers.

I would suspect he isn't. Is there a team just sitting around and wondering how they can possibly make their team better and then think they need Sam Bennett?

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by AC

Also didn't like seeing the 4th line + 3rd D pair out after the go ahead goal in the 3rd, which resulted in the insurance goal.

This




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Familia

*rabble! rabble!*

Why is it some of you are only interested in participating on this forum when you have things about which to complain? It is your prerogative (I suppose), but it doesn’t exactly qualify as a constructive contribution.

[Enoch Root]

Haven't read the thread yet but I have to get this off my chest...

The game is 3-3 but the Flames have been dominant and are playing well. The Nucks get a good break and score the go ahead goal - a potential momentum changer. SO what happens next?...

The Nucks send out the Sedin line, who, frankly, haven't been very good and are vulnerable. WHat does Gulutzan counter with? The fourth line and the 3rd defensive pairing. Despite the fact that there had just been a Vancouver PP and the top line was rested.

I turned to the guy beside me and said 'the Flames will lose the game on this shift'. Thirty seconds later, the game was over.

I have been patient, but I am done with Gulutzan. Horrible, horrible bench management. And no passion. Teams take on the personality of their coach. And the Flames have definitely taken on his persona.

They are wasting a year in which they could be competitive.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

I would suspect he isn't. Is there a team just sitting around and wondering how they can possibly make their team better and then think they need Sam Bennett?

His cap hit would make him a very attractive option for a lot of teams.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

And you're saying this on a night where (despite the result) we out-played and significantly out-chanced the other team over sixty minutes.

I'm not understanding what you're getting at, at all aside from doing what you usually do.

There was no reason for you to bust out " by my count the Flames are 4 wins, 7 losses and 4 ties" and ramble on about gimmick points and cautionary tales of being out-played over sixty minutes on a night where we dominated most of the game.

I didn't "ramble on" or "bust out", provide a "cautionary tale" or "do what i usually do". I just made an observation about the Flames record.

Sorry it touched a nerve.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by Meers

I didn't realize Markstrom could play so well. He stole this one.

No need for the Flames to hang their heads. If they play that way they'll win most nights.

He wasn't that good. There really wasn't much traffic in front of him. Canucks collapsed down. Flames skated it around the perimeter and guys stood off to the side waiting for tip ins or to skate it back around the other side of the net but very rarely crashed the crease or planted themselves in front of him. I actually thought we let him off easy. Last 15 minutes I didn't see the drive. GG didn't fire them up at all.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I didn't "ramble on" or "bust out", provide a "cautionary tale" or "do what i usually do". I just made an observation about the Flames record.

Sorry it touched a nerve.

You did all of that, and then got very sulky when what you were saying was challenged.

Again, (not allowing you to get off topic) you seemed to be manufacturing concern about play over sixty minutes on a night where we were much better than the other team throughout the three periods. You can point to a few where it was tied after sixty minutes or where we were outplayed in games we won, but there are games that even those out.

"by my count the Flames are 4 wins, 7 losses and 4 ties" deserved to be criticized.

[Fan in Exile]

The Flames came out and dominated the first two periods. They should have went away with it notwithstanding Markstrom's play. And then Brodie makes a lazy pass and then watches while Sutter blows by him. Smith thinks he has to cut out the angle from behind the net for some reason and then they continue to collectively make bad decisions the rest of the night. It's not just about effort. The effort was there. It's also about being smart, keeping focussed for 60 minutes, and stepping it up when it matters. We have one guy like that, Monahan, and half the posters think he's the problem because he's not a real star.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Dion

His cap hit would make him a very attractive option for a lot of teams.

I would think a player who is playing well would be attractive to a lot of teams.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Psytic

He wasn't that good. There really wasn't much traffic in front of him.

He was very good tonight.

It would be better saying "he's not as good as he was tonight".

He made some absolutely ridiculous saves on high quality scoring chances.

It will happen from time to time.

[Manhattanboy]

Change of scenery is likely best for Bennett but agree difficult to judge what the return would be.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

You did all of that, and then got very sulky when what you were saying was challenged.

Again, (not allowing you to get off topic) you seemed to be manufacturing concern about play over sixty minutes on a night where we were much better than the other team throughout the three periods. You can point to a few where it was tied after sixty minutes or where we were outplayed in games we won, but there are games that even those out.

"by my count the Flames are 4 wins, 7 losses and 4 ties" deserved to be criticized.

Not sure how "deserves to be criticized" is determined but I suspect you and I have different views on that. The Flames record in regulation is what it is. I see no point arguing about it. As I pointed out, Flames deserved a better fate tonight.

Sorry it bothered you that I brought this up at what you felt was an inappropriate time. Perhaps I require sensitivity training. Meanwhile, please go look for another offensive post that deserves your criticism.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Not sure how "deserves to be criticized" is determined but I suspect you and I have different views on that. The Flames record in regulation is what it is. I see no point arguing about it. As I pointed out, Flames deserved a better fate tonight.

Sorry it bothered you that I brought this up at what you felt was an inappropriate time. Perhaps I require sensitivity training. Meanwhile, please go look for another offensive post that deserves your criticism.

No, you're not sulking that your observation was challenged at all.

We do indeed have very different views on your "concerns". I think we can leave it at that.