[PGT] Leafs 2 Flames 1

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by AustinL_NHL

5v5 through the two games:

Leafs:
CF: 98 (59.8%)
FF: 81 (61.8%)
SF: 53 (58.2%)
SCF: 44 (57.9%)
HDCF: 20 (70.0%)
xGF: 3.79 (65.1%)

Flames:
CF: 66 (40.2%)
FF: 50 (38.2%)
SF: 38 (41.8%)
SCF: 32 (42.1%)
HDCF: 9 (30.0%)
xGF: 2.03 (34.9%)

The Leafs had more 5v5 high danger chances tonight alone (12) than the Flames did over 2 games against a 3rd string goaltender. Averaging 19 shots a game 5v5 against a 3rd string goalie is unacceptable.

BSD played out of his god damn mind to steal 3 points and some people are happy with those road games? If those are both losses like they should've been, fans are calling for everyones head. But instead we're going to let ourselves get blinded by 3 unearned points because we got back-to-back God-like performances from our goalie?

Yea, no thanks.

Un-deserved points are my favorite kind.

It gets the stat boys so rattled.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It’s funny - some use the fact there have been 4 coaches with similar results as proof positive the Flames don’t hire good coaches. That may be true, but the other explanation is that the Flames players just don’t perform that well no matter who their coach is.

Four coaches is 6 years is not an endorsement of the quality of coaches - if they were good coaches, there would have been 1 or 2.

[RedMan12]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Just wait Flames fans....

BT will trade a high pick or prospect at the deadline....

Team will either not make the playoffs or out 1st round...

And Ward will be back next season...

This is the way...

This is the way...
Since 2007

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

How is this any different than people who stick to “if only we had a different coach they’d be better” coach after coach?

That's a strawman. No one has been calling for "different coaches". People have been calling for a better coach. Notice the difference.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

How is this any different than people who stick to “if only we had a different coach they’d be better” coach after coach?

I guess the simple answer is:

The team would at least be entertaining to watch. Which they were, even in the year Hartley got fired for.

Watching them fail to use 80% of the ice ("the middle") is not very fun to watch.

But I'm sure that's because of mental toughness. lol

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Funny, most of everything I read in the PGTs whether they win or lose are complaints about the professional athletes' ability to complete 5 foot passes as if these professional athletes cannot complete five foot passes.

Well, they didn’t complete passes. It’s not that they are unable. It’s that they didn’t execute.

The systems - debate them, fine. But no system makes Gaudreau pass to Monahan when he’s blanketed. No system has Bennett pass to a Leaf along the boards.

And a lot of the passes which were botched were ones which posters here complain the system doesn’t permit. Across to the weak side, stretch passes, up the middle.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, they didn’t complete passes. It’s not that they are unable. It’s that they didn’t execute.

The systems - debate them, fine. But no system makes Gaudreau pass to Monahan when he’s blanketed. No system has Bennett pass to a Leaf along the boards.

And a lot of the passes which were botched were ones which posters here complain the system doesn’t permit. Across to the weak side, stretch passes, up the middle.

Botched plays happen.

But when every shift is a botched play, by four lines and three d pairs, every game it is no longer a botched play by these professional athletes. It is a style of play being pursued, if unsuccessfully.

The fact that Ward "liked" our 3rd period reinforces that.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

You can repeat this claim but that doesn't make it true.

This team has been one of the better comeback teams, whether that's games or seasons, the last six years. That is the opposite of mentally weak.
.

Completely disagree. It's far easier to play well when behind when the game is lost and if you come back - great!
Mental discipline and commitment is more apparent in
- Consistency game to game and within games
- How you start a game, are you ready to go?
- Ability to rise to the occasion in big games
- How easy is it to knock you off your game? Or do you remain committed?

That's mental discipline.
Come-backs? Meh. That's a whole lotta of the other team letting off the pedal coupled with doses of luck.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, they didn’t complete passes. It’s not that they are unable. It’s that they didn’t execute.

The systems - debate them, fine. But no system makes Gaudreau pass to Monahan when he’s blanketed. No system has Bennett pass to a Leaf along the boards.

And a lot of the passes which were botched were ones which posters here complain the system doesn’t permit. Across to the weak side, stretch passes, up the middle.

Agreed.

But here's the thing: these guys are NHLers, they know how to play. When one guy is struggling, they are having a bad game or are in a slump. But when an entire team is struggling, for 20 games, and they are all constantly making bad decisions, I see a team that is thinking too much and/or is trying to do what they're being told to do, instead of just playing.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

That's a strawman. No one has been calling for "different coaches". People have been calling for a better coach. Notice the difference.

Actually, plenty of people have been calling for “any other coach”.

A better coach will no doubt get better results. But how much better with the same crew long term. GG got better results than Hartley over a season, with a similar lineup. Then they regressed. Peters looked like a “better coach” and he got results in one year. Next year, back to .500 under him. Ward took over and they improved, until the POs. This year they’ve settled back.

If this team plays 100% they can compete, but are nowhere near a top team. But can this team do that? Probably not since no team is 100% each and every night.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, they didn’t complete passes. It’s not that they are unable. It’s that they didn’t execute.

The systems - debate them, fine. But no system makes Gaudreau pass to Monahan when he’s blanketed. No system has Bennett pass to a Leaf along the boards.

And a lot of the passes which were botched were ones which posters here complain the system doesn’t permit. Across to the weak side, stretch passes, up the middle.

Are you saying this team is unwilling or incapable of playing the way the coach wants? Or any coach?

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Un-deserved points are my favorite kind.

It gets the stat boys so rattled.

Stats or not those are not fun games to watch.

Never fun to see the Flames hemmed in their own zone for the majority of a game with them generating next to nothing on offence.

At least when the Hartley teams were hemmed in all the time they would be entertaining with quick counter attacks (but little sustained zone time). This team does neither of those things.

But sure we come away with 3/4 points but overall I don’t feel any better about this teams play than I did after the losses against the Oilers. We just got better goaltending but still looked like crap for the most part.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I have to admit, I’m starting to wonder about the psychology of
‘It’s not the coach, it’s the players’.

Because some people stick to it, coach after coach.

Is it resigning yourself to some inevitability, or creating the illusion that perhaps there is hope for change, simply because a decision on coaching typically happens on a once in a few years basis (barring extraordinary circumstances)

I’m suspecting it’s some kind of defense mechanism

Let's be honest. Both positions are valid. The data point can be used to make either argument, just a matter of choosing which one supports one's position.

Argument 1: The failure of this same core under 4 different coaches suggests coaching isn't the problem, the players are
Argument 2: The failure of 4 different coaches with this same roster suggests this team is hiring the wrong type of coach

Same data point. Opposite arguments. Both valid.

What I don't understand is how can be so locked in that you can't see how the information can be rationally used to argue for either position. So instead you default to "must be a defense mechanism".

Again for the record - I don't like the coach or the roster.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Actually, plenty of people have been calling for “any other coach”.

A better coach will no doubt get better results. But how much better with the same crew long term. GG got better results than Hartley over a season, with a similar lineup. Then they regressed. Peters looked like a “better coach” and he got results in one year. Next year, back to .500 under him. Ward took over and they improved, until the POs. This year they’ve settled back.

If this team plays 100% they can compete, but are nowhere near a top team. But can this team do that? Probably not since no team is 100% each and every night.

Of course not. BUt the difference between winning and losing in the NHL is marginal. The difference between playoffs or no playoffs will be just a few games - maybe one game - over a 56 game schedule.

If a better coach can get a few extra wins out of them, that is likely enough to make the playoffs. Which is better than the alternative.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by zamler

Are you saying this team is unwilling or incapable of playing the way the coach wants? Or any coach?

You didn't ask me but I don't think this team is not committed to consistently doing what is required to win.

And/or they simply don't have the talent.

Pick your poison.

[jroc]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Ref should have blown the whistle. There's no way he didn't lose sight of the puck.

It's not uncommon to come into the PGT and see posters blaming the refs for a loss... But blaming the ref for doing a good job? Now that's comical.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Agreed.

But here's the thing: these guys are NHLers, they know how to play. When one guy is struggling, they are having a bad game or are in a slump. But when an entire team is struggling, for 20 games, and they are all constantly making bad decisions, I see a team that is thinking too much and/or is trying to do what they're being told to do, instead of just playing.

Or they just lack focus and drive. Or they haven’t bought in and they should.

Any system works, if it’s done well. And to do it well, you are right, it has to be second nature. IMO Ward’s flaw isn’t a system, it’s his ability to get players to commit to one. And he’s the latest of 4 coaches, including Hartley, to have that issue with the same guys. They could use a new coach. But they also need a jolt of reality - a coach isn’t a fix-all, they need to shoulder some responsibility. It’s too bad training camp was short, because Ward as a new coach could have used a lot more drill time.

This isn’t a problem unique to this group. Hell, the Cup winning team had to shed some talented guys who wouldn’t buy in. And there were guys who thought Johnson’s technics were goofy, but they didn’t them anyway.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Let's be honest. Both positions are valid. The data point can be used to make either argument, just a matter of choosing which one supports one's position.

Argument 1: The failure of this same core under 4 different coaches suggests coaching isn't the problem, the players are
Argument 2: The failure of 4 different coaches with this same roster suggests this team is hiring the wrong type of coach

Same data point. Opposite arguments. Both valid.

What I don't understand is how can be so locked in that you can't see how the information can be rationally used to argue for either position. So instead you default to "must be a defense mechanism".

Again for the record - I don't like the coach or the roster.

Yes, absolutely. And I think both are valid also.

However, there is a fundamental difference between the two data points, with respect to dealing with them:

One is a simple binary decision - replace, or don't

The other is a long-term, evolutionary process that not only takes years, but is already in progress and is always in progress. And each and every one of the players is fluid - they can be better or worse, depending on utilization, confidence, line-mates, etc. So much, much more difficult to ascertain, and requiring a much larger data set to determine.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by zamler

Are you saying this team is unwilling or incapable of playing the way the coach wants? Or any coach?

I don’t know about any coach, or even Ward, if he had had a better run up to this season. I do know they played how Hartley wanted, until they didn’t. They played how GG wanted, until they didn’t. They played a great style under Peters until they didn’t.

It doesn’t have to be the whole team to screw it up either. It doesn’t have to be intentional - I’m sure Johnny isn’t coached to work his way into the corner with the puck and he knows that isn’t where he wants to be. But sometimes habits are hard to break.

I’m all for a better coach and there are a few candidates if they want to come. But they’ve had 4 guys with years of NHL experience who can’t all have just gotten all those previous positions out of dumb luck. They must know something.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Any system works, if it’s done well. And to do it well, you are right, it has to be second nature. IMO Ward’s flaw isn’t a system, it’s his ability to get players to commit to one. And he’s the latest of 4 coaches, including Hartley, to have that issue with the same guys.

Here is a list of players who are still with the team from Hartley's time:

Mark Giordano
Mikael Backlund
Johnny Gaudreau
Sean Monahan
Sam Bennett

That's it. That's literally it unless you want to include one game where Hartley coached Kylington against the Wild.

So do you believe it's Gio or Backlund who won't commit to a system?

Or let's assume it's the other three. Well they were all out there as a line today, meaning that the rest of the game they were not out there, and none of the other lines were executing successful breakouts and zone entries either.

Even Brodie is gone, replaced by Tanev.

We've had an almost complete roster overhaul, and I don't thinking changing three more players suddenly makes 18 other guys start making 5 foot passes.