Apparently Bart draws back in next game?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I agree with that, however, what on earth has Barkowski done to warrant playing time? Kulak has been showing vast improvement and the team has been winning.....unless he is hurt it makes no sense to put in a lesser player against a high end team simply to give him some action.

Even the extra player needs to get same action from time to time.

As long as it's a one-off, so be it. If Bartkowski draws back in for more than one game, I'll have more company on the Gulutzan hate train come the weekend, I think.

[DropIt]

I imagine the fact Kulak has never played relatively close to an 82 game schedule + potentially added playoff games has a lot to do with this decision. The guy played less then 50 games last year.

But let the coach firing crowd have their say I suppose

[CroFlames]

If there is no reason other than just trying to get Bart some reps, then I deem that a bad decision. Kulak has played well, doesn't look tired and should be rewarded with games.

Sure, if he's got a bump or bruise, it's a chance to rest him. But if it's just to get Bart in game situations, I don't like it. Bart gets paid to sit in press boxes, and to be happy for the opportunity to do so.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Honestly its whatever - its your 6 defensman. I'd rather have Kulak, but I'm not around the team or know the circumstances that allow bart to draw in. Call me when he's directly responsible for the GWG against before getting fired up about this

Last year, after our humiliating sweep at the hands of the Ducks, I put together a post that analyzed who was at fault for the Flames for each goal against.

Results?

Off the top of my head Bartkowski was on the ice for like 80% of the goals against, and made a play (or failed to make one) that directly resulted in the Ducks scoring on the vast majority of those goals.

He can literally cost you a game single handed. There is zero justification for playing him over Kulak, unless Kulak is injured. And even then, I'd be more tempted to go with 5 defense men.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Last year, after our humiliating sweep at the hands of the Ducks, I put together a post that analyzed who was at fault for the Flames for each goal against.

Results?

Off the top of my head Bartkowski was on the ice for like 80% of the goals against, and made a play (or failed to make one) that directly resulted in the Ducks scoring on the vast majority of those goals.

He can literally cost you a game single handed. There is zero justification for playing him over Kulak, unless Kulak is injured. And even then, I'd be more tempted to go with 5 defense men.

It's hard to analyze defense when you had Elliott doing his best impression of a sieve. Over the course of a full season? No problem. Over a 4 game series with some of the worst goaltending I've ever seen? I'd take that information with a grain of salt.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Last year, after our humiliating sweep at the hands of the Ducks, I put together a post that analyzed who was at fault for the Flames for each goal against.

Results?

Off the top of my head Bartkowski was on the ice for like 80% of the goals against, and made a play (or failed to make one) that directly resulted in the Ducks scoring on the vast majority of those goals.

He can literally cost you a game single handed. There is zero justification for playing him over Kulak, unless Kulak is injured. And even then, I'd be more tempted to go with 5 defense men.

good thing this is game #22 and not game 86 then so its not a big enough deal to get up in arms about

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

So that can happen when someone is dinged up or when you're playing toilet teams like Edmonton, Arizona, Florida etc. This move is essentially forcing the team to play shorthanded all game.

You can't necessarily wait until someone is dinged up. And they don't play AZ (or any of the other two) for another 5 games or so. So if his plan was to sit Bart for five games or so and then give him a game (he hasn't played since the Vancouver game 6 games ago) this may be the best option, give the style of the BJs. I think the plan was to play him on one road game, and this is it.

It's not like they are guaranteed to lose either. They've won more than they've lost with him in this year. 6-5 I think.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

It's hard to analyze defense when you had Elliott doing his best impression of a sieve. Over the course of a full season? No problem. Over a 4 game series with some of the worst goaltending I've ever seen? I'd take that information with a grain of salt.

Here, check out the vids for yourself (post #801).

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...ck#post6228760

Not denying that Elliott wasn't all kinds of awful. He was absolutely terrible.

But Bartkowski........he's just not an NHL caliber defense man.

[jammies]

Bartkowski is so terrible that the Flames will not only lose this next game, but the NHL will undoubtedly take away two points they've already earned and award them to a non-Bartkowski team. Hundreds of kindly grandmas will slip on ice, and all previously friendly dogs in a hundred mile radius will go feral and bite your child. During the broadcast (Flames home region only, luckily for the sanity of the world), a Dougie photobomb will go terribly awry when a jealous Bartkowski kills and eats Roger Millions in a cannibalistic ritual intended to grant him satanic hockey powers and the sweet flow of Jagr's hair.

The next day at practice, he will forget his skates and use puppies on his feet instead, ignoring their piteous whines as he practices identifying and then giving the puck away to the most dangerous player on the other team. He will steal all the hockey tape from the equipment guy's bag and blame it on "some kids I saw hanging around and smoking". Unless - somehow - he can be stopped by the righteous outrage of a plucky bunch of underdog CP posters.

[IliketoPuck]

A+

[getbak]

Looks like it was much ado about nothing...

Derek Wills‏ @Fan960Wills


#Flames projected line-up vs. #BlueJackets:

Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland
Tkachuk-Backlund-Frolik
Bennett-Jankowski-Jagr
Versteeg-F. Hamilton-Brouwer

Giordano-D. Hamilton
Brodie-Hamonic
Kulak-Stone

Smith (Starter)
Lack

#CGYvsCBJ – at Nationwide Arena

[IliketoPuck]

I have a somewhat singular dislike for Bartkowski, I will admit. That dislike is well earned by his mediocre play.

Initially, that dislike was focused on Blake Comeau. Then it transferred to Joe Colborne, then it transferred to Alex Chiasson, and now it resides with Bartkowski. When Bartkowski isn't in the lineup, I direct my attention to disliking Brouwer.

[RichKlit]

Maybe you should focus on enjoying the game rather than who should I hate today?

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by getbak

Looks like it was much ado about nothing...

LOL Glen Guletzan trolls CP hard and outs the whiners in spectacular fashion. Well done Glen

[theg69]

Only on CP can an unsubstantiated rumour about our #6 defenseman cause such an uproar... lol

That being said - that same pattern that Iliketopuck pointed out last playoffs is still a bit of a concern for me - I honestly don't mind GG as a coach overall - but I am hate that the fourth line and third pairing get so much ice time at key moments in the game (ie. Stajan penalty against Philly).

So I think it is telling that so many people get really worried with the prospect of Bart drawing in... because you know he won't get limited minutes and will likely be on the ice with 1-2 minutes to go when we are in a close game.. LOL

Maybe we should make a thread title on the main page " To GG: STOP overplaying your fourth line and third pairing" - because based on the lineup GG is icing now - he does seem to listen to CP.... eventually...

[bax]

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

Jack Adams decision making right here folks

Always nice to see a good troll comment backfire

[TheFlamesVan]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

If there is no reason other than just trying to get Bart some reps, then I deem that a bad decision. Kulak has played well, doesn't look tired and should be rewarded with games.

Sure, if he's got a bump or bruise, it's a chance to rest him. But if it's just to get Bart in game situations, I don't like it. Bart gets paid to sit in press boxes, and to be happy for the opportunity to do so.

You do not seem to be describing the mentality of a professional athlete. Easy to say for us nobodies who would "do anything for the chance". But when you compete your entire life for that chance, you don't just "sit there and be happy about it".

If that was his mentality, he wouldn't have ever made it here.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by getbak

Looks like it was much ado about nothing...

Jammies, you can thank us CP underdog posters for this.

[calgaryblood]

Not surprised....can't believe people tripped over themselves because of an innocent tweet that was obviously very speculative. Knowing Calgary "insiders" I didn't believe it for a second.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by TheFlamesVan

You do not seem to be describing the mentality of a professional athlete. Easy to say for us nobodies who would "do anything for the chance". But when you compete your entire life for that chance, you don't just "sit there and be happy about it".

If that was his mentality, he wouldn't have ever made it here.

Disagree. Compared to playing a regular shift in the A or Europe, I'd rather be making NHL money, practicing regularly with the big club, using NHL facilities and traveling in style. You get the odd game here and there and he should be happy.

Of course, he'd rather play all 82. Everyone would.

I'd rather have $25 million in my bank account, but I don't, so all I can do is be happy I have a job that pays the bills.