Lazar may have played his last regular season game in the NHL.
God I hope so. So many great options for the new NHL, no need to waste a spot on him. Hope he takes a seat next to Hathaway on the plane out of town too. Give Bennett and Jamkowski a scoring winger.
I’m sorry, I heard all the excuses (big ice, 1 practice, etc) but Gillies has never had a single moment where I’ve thought “there’s our NHL goalie of the future”. IIRC his numbers in the A are middling as well? He got blasted in the first, minimal shots there out, then lit up in the shootout. I hope we move on and make room for Parsons.
Great game otherwise. Love the new PP. So good to see players out there with skill rather than Brouwerplay and good guy/bad player Stajan.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
I really enjoyed watching that game... something I have not been able to say in a while. Obviously, only one (first pre-season at that) game, but the gist of the thing for me is that the Flames need 2 things to win the Cup:
1) a skilled #2 C that pushes Backlund to the 3rd line
2) better goaltending (overall, not just because Gillies sucks)
Perhaps (1) can come through internal growth or using the players differently - we shall see. I am sure Smith can provide good goaltending - I just don't think he can do it for the whole season and playoffs. Gillies needs a LOT of technical work. I guess we hope Rittich can break out. I am worried that this is our Achilles heel.
I thought Bennett had a good game. Was physical, created a bunch of chances, drove the puck to the net, etc. IMO, this whole thing about breaking down the play with the saucer pass is the same as reviewing a hit in slow motion. The entire play happened in around one second realtime. Looked like a good skill play to me.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Robbob For This Useful Post:
1) a skilled #2 C that pushes Backlund to the 3rd line
I’ve been thinking about this, too. I’m wondering if Czarnik or Ryan could be moved to the 1st or 2nd line wing. That would allow Lindholm to be the 2nd line C
Something like:
Gaudreau - Mony- Neal
Tkachuk - Lindholm - Czarnik
Mangiapane - Backlund - Ryan
Bennett - Jankowski - Frolik
-New Era’s comments were right on if only looking at the 1st. The 2nd and 3rd was great...
The problem I have with New Era's comments are that they read strongly like a vendetta against advanced possession metrics, and they do not accurately reflect what transpired in the game. Criticism is fine, even if the first pre-season game is a terrible place to be making evaluations. But if such criticism degenerates to cherry-picking, straw-man arguments, and obviously false statements then it is out of line.
Here is a sampling of observations from a number of posters after the game:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Loved the movement on the PP. Loved the high-paced play. Loved Brodano. Loved all the new guys.
Does anyone still think that Peters is just another Gulutzan?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC
...Our PP and PK both looked miles better strategically than under the last coaching staff's direction. I love the quick downlow to slot passing on the PP that lead to Monahan's goal but almost clicked a couple other times as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireItUp
Flames look Fast and Fast is good...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Halak had to work hard. Lots of close in chances.
I thought the Flames were by far the better team. Czarnik, Ryan, Hanifin and Lindholm looked really good. Neal played like he always does - he is pretty quiet a lot but then makes a good play...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wretched34
...All in all, thought the majority of the team looked great, much faster, a lot more skill. Gonna be a fun season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireGilbert
...The Flames looked much improved with greater skill and more balance. They also had far better breakouts and discipline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan
1) Speed and aggression. Where the Flames played slow and timid under Gulutzan, they are bold, aggressive, and quick under Peters. That did lead to a couple of odd-man rushes in the first, but that will get worked out with some practice. I LOVE this style of play. Very entertained by the game...
5) Special teams looked good already. A far cry from last year obviously. I think the puck movement is crisp, there's creativity, and there's also clear strategy.
And then there is Bingo's very even-handed assessment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Gap Control – The biggest five on five change for me is how tight the defense is playing to the play in the opposition zone, and as the team moves up the ice. Clearly Bill Peters has a demand for tight gaps (no huge space between the forwards and the defense core, creating a hole that can be exploited on turnovers), a system that creates little opportunity for the opposition to transition, but can be detrimental on turnovers if you don’t have fleet footed players...
[The powerplay featured] lots of players on their off side with sticks on the inside creating a better angle. Last year the Flames simply refused to put their shooters (they didn’t have many) in good shooting positions as time and time again players were on their normal sides up a man. Today we saw James Neal, Matthew Tkachuk, Johnny Gaudreau and Sean Monahan taking the puck to the home plate area from their off wing with options available. Mark Giordano’s first goal was a perfect example of the off side Gaudreau heading into the danger zone with options opening up because his stick wasn’t being forced to the outside. Very good sign.
The other big change was the set up. The Flames last year moved the puck around the perimeter far too much, showing control, but not creating the chances you need to score. Today’s game featured a lot of half wall to the center to the half wall give and goes to get the box moving, and plays from behind the net which are excellent in creating odd man chances as defenders are forced to turn their backs on their cover.
There is an obvious consistency in what most people observed: the Flames played faster in the China game than they appeared all season last year. They showed an obvious improvement in skill, and demonstrated a shift away from perhaps the biggest issue last year—their movement and set-up on the powerplay, and it produced two goals.
And here is the substance of what New Era saw:
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
...Looked like the same Flames from last season to me. Same "possession" darlings who spend most of the night in the offensive zone, but get owned when they don't play a perfect game. Same Flames special teams who rely on the junior-esque drop pass to enter the zone. Same Flames who give up great scoring opportunities right after scoring.
...Don't see a helluva lot different from last season. Same special teams with the same tired drop pass to gain the zone. Nothing that would focus on getting the goaltender moving. The system still allows to get the goaltender square and that is something that needs to be changed...
Most CPers recognize that there were breakdowns in that game—the odd-man rushes, and the sloppy puck-play—and to his credit New Era is right to point these out. But by and large I think everyone else agrees that there are obvious improvements to some of the most glaring problems of the past couple of years, and he seems to have either missed or chosen to ignore them.
So, the problem is not with the presence of criticism. It is with criticism that is blatantly off-the-mark and agenda-driven.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
The dog piling and the Debbie labels because a poster here shares a view that is not popular on this forum. I don't agree with much of what he said but I do give him credit for backing up his views.
I don't have a problem with negative opinions at all. I honestly think some people look for negatives, some look for positives ... both camps think they're normal and realists. Neither are right.
What I do have a problem with though is stuff like this ...
Quote:
New Era: I get that everyone is all excited about hockey being back, and trying to find positives in the changes brought to the lineup, but there wasn't much difference from last year. The Flames looked okay against the Bruins, but this was a Bruins squad that was missing s number of important starters. There is a very long way to go.
This is the old marginalize the opposition with the stance that people are "excited" and "trying to find positives" because you don't agree with me and my take.
It's weak and silly
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
I don't have a problem with negative opinions at all. I honestly think some people look for negatives, some look for positives ... both camps think they're normal and realists. Neither are right.
What I do have a problem with though is stuff like this ...
This is the old marginalize the opposition with the stance that people are "excited" and "trying to find positives" because you don't agree with me and my take.
It's weak and silly
As someone often accused of being pessimistic or looking for negatives, I don't get the quote part either.
The Flames had a huge amount of roster turnover between this season and last. It was clear as crystal watching that preseason game, where one might expect to NOT notice those things as everyone gets their legs under them in freakin' China, and yet, team much different.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
I don't have a problem with negative opinions at all. I honestly think some people look for negatives, some look for positives ... both camps think they're normal and realists. Neither are right.
What I do have a problem with though is stuff like this ...
This is the old marginalize the opposition with the stance that people are "excited" and "trying to find positives" because you don't agree with me and my take.
It's weak and silly
The biggest issue with the overly negative posts, like the negative book written by New Era in this thread isn't that they have a negative opinion, it's how definitive they usually are. That's fine if game one didn't convince you things will be better, but it's completely silly to draw any concrete conclusions (negative or positive) from the first preseason game. To be drawing any conclusions about whether this year will be different based on pre season game #1 is just ludicrous, and to be so passionate about what you saw in Pre Season game 1 is ridiculous.
On top of that, the negative posters always seem to have a "prove me wrong" attitude towards their posts, like they are some how backing them up with facts. Fact is, it's very easy to be right in sport if you always take the pessimistic view. Very few teams out of the 31 in the NHL have "successful seasons". The Stanley Cup winner, maybe the finalist if it's the first trip, and one or two surprise playoff teams. Chances are, if you take the negative route, you'll get to say "see, I told you so" every year, because even as teams have success, usually the expectations and yard sticks keep getting pushed out further and further. Being negative is a sure fire way to always get to say you were right.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cleveland Steam Whistle For This Useful Post:
Fact is, it's very easy to be right in sport if you always take the pessimistic view. Very few teams out of the 31 in the NHL have "successful seasons". The Stanley Cup winner, maybe the finalist if it's the first trip, and one or two surprise playoff teams. Chances are, if you take the negative route, you'll get to say "see, I told you so" every year, because even as teams have success, usually the expectations and yard sticks keep getting pushed out further and further. Being negative is a sure fire way to always get to say you were right.
I was going to say something like this in the trade and speculation a.k.a Bennett is/isn't a bust thread. Where there have been significant X is bad/give X a chance debates in the past it has turned out that X is in fact bad more often than not. Is this because the X is bad folks have better judgement or just that sport is hard and failure is more normal than success?
Surprise, surprise, I have a much different perspective than what most have posted here. Looked like the same Flames from last season to me. Same "possession" darlings who spend most of the night in the offensive zone, but get owned when they don't play a perfect game. Same Flames special teams who rely on the junior-esque drop pass to enter the zone. Same Flames who give up great scoring opportunities right after scoring. Flames gave up way too many odd man rushes and high danger scoring opportunities. I really felt bad for Gillies during the first period, as the team just committed brain fart after brain fart, leading to odd man, high danger scoring opportunities. The Bruins were very good at getting the goaltender moving and never allowing Gillies to square up to make a save. I really hope the Flames take a look at this tape and learn what to do, because Halak was allowed to square up most of the game. Breaking the lines/players down.
Gaudreau-Monahan-Lindholm
Gaudreau was Gaudreau and Monahan was Monahan. Lindholm just isn't a good fit on this line. I like Lindholm a lot, but he just doesn't play at the same level as his linemates. He's more of a Backlund/Frolik player and would likely be a much better fit on that line.
Bennett-Jankowski-Hathaway
Worst line on the ice for the Flames. Jankowski struggled with the puck at times, waiting for his linemates to get to open ice. Hathaway missed the first, but didn't look any different from last season. I don't see a NHL player there. Bennett was Bennett. The guy just can't make a pass to save his life, and his shot is never on net. When he had an opportunity, he missed the net. When he had an opportunity to make a pass, he put it in the guys skates or just flat out missed him. Most disappointing game on the ice for the Flames.
Tkachuk-Backlund-Neal
Really missing something. I think that something is a center with some skill to move the puck. Backlund just isn't a high skilled center wgo can distribute the puck. Tkachuk struggled a bit in his own right, but it is tough when your center can't create offense and space for his linemates. Neal looked just as advertised, a guy who reads the play well and finds himself in positions to convert chances.
Frolik-Ryan-Czarnik
A double edged sword on this line. They generated some chances, but I don't think they were a sum of their pieces. Frolik was out of sorts with these two. Definitely not the offense first line that Ryan and Czarnik were focused on. Not sure how you make these guys work.
Giordano-Brodie
Looked fairly solid throughout the game. A work in progress, but looked good. Brodie looks much more comfortable in this config.
Hamonic-Hanafin
Solid throughout. Nothing to rave about, and nothing to complain about. Hanafin was very surprisingly solid.
Stone-Kulak
Looked solid. Don't know why anyone was concerned about either of them.
Coaches and Systems
Don't see a helluva lot different from last season. Same special teams with the same tired drop pass to gain the zone. Nothing that would focus on getting the goaltender moving. The system still allows to get the goaltender square and that is something that needs to be changed.
First game of the preseason and nothing that made me believe this version of the Flames would be better or worse than last season. I would look to some minor changes in the lineup and see how these guys perform together.
I see potential from this club, but I'm not certain I see enough to make believe this team can challenge for anything. They played a squad that was half of the Bruins regular team to pretty much a draw. It was a good start, but nothing to write home to mother about.
I did not see the game, but I do like your lines for next game, particularly double shifting Sam. I think that will show confidence from the coaching staff in his game, which may unleash his full potential.
Gillies sure seems to have a pattern of mentally losing it for a little bit and then playing pretty damn stable for the rest of the game..
It does seem that way, but this is the difference between NHL and non NHL goaltending. So if this actually is part of his game he won't be an option for us at the NHL level, backp or otherwise.
Hopefully he can work through it mentally, as there's a grand canyon sized graveyard of NHL hopefuls that look great for most of the game.
