Why don't we just call it what it is, then? A team with "identity" is one that is highly competitive and tough to play against. I don't see why we would make it any more complicated than this: good teams are difficult to beat.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
No. It’s not that. Part of identity is what you do, and then there is that you go about doing it consistently
Have you read Gillis’s document? It describes wanting to play a fast transitional game, staying out of the box, avoiding icing, encouraging brains over brawn.
They formed a meritocracy and had a leadership group that they relied on. Shipped out Naslund because it was required to shape the culture.
Piece it together with Bieksa’s remarks about level of internal competition as well as conditioning.
Guess what? The team had an identity
A style of play, leadership behaviours, expectations, etc
Good teams know what they are and there are lots of teams with good players that are worse on the ice than on paper
Honestly, I will defer to athletes who understand the concept of identity and how it contributes to team success over all of the posters here who want to oversimplify or dismiss the concept
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
I'd completely agree. But nobody is just going to let you win.
You have to fight for it.
We can debate the validity of platitudes all day long, but this team has no other gears to grab. Its hockey. Toughness is important. Both physical and mental.
This is whats particularly frustrating for me at least. It seems like most of the pieces are all there...they're just not doing it.
They need a General.
Hard ass generals have shelf lives.
One key is to be able to find a way to motivate people to want to do the things you need them to do
Identity is a tool for success
Consider it defining expectations that help to allow people to self determine their adherence
Here’s what we are trying to do, how can you help that?
No. It’s not that. Part of identity is what you do, and then there is that you go about doing it consistently
Have you read Gillis’s document? It describes wanting to play a fast transitional game, staying out of the box, avoiding icing, encouraging brains over brawn.
They formed a meritocracy and had a leadership group that they relied on. Shipped out Naslund because it was required to shape the culture.
Piece it together with Bieksa’s remarks about level of internal competition as well as conditioning.
Guess what? The team had an identity
A style of play, leadership behaviours, expectations, etc
Good teams know what they are and there are lots of teams with good players that are worse on the ice than on paper
Honestly, I will defer to athletes who understand the concept of identity and how it contributes to team success over all of the posters here who want to oversimplify or dismiss the concept
So what you’re saying is that the statement of “team identity” is an oversimplification of a team’s style of play, leadership behaviours, expectations, etc.
It’s a trope that get humped by the media and fans as a talking point without a breakdown of what they actually mean or what they are actually saying. This is exactly what Bieksa was doing.
I’ll defer to hockey professionals who have won championships stating you need the ability to beat teams more than one way in order to win a championship.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Boreal For This Useful Post:
I’ll defer to hockey professionals who have won championships stating you need the ability to beat teams more than one way in order to win a championship.
So will I. You can't win at ‘Rock, Scissors, Paper’ when your only move is ‘Rock’.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post:
So what you’re saying is that the statement of “team identity” is an oversimplification of a team’s style of play, leadership behaviours, expectations, etc.
It’s a trope that get humped by the media and fans as a talking point without a breakdown of what they actually mean or what they are actually saying. This is exactly what Bieksa was doing.
I’ll defer to hockey professionals who have won championships stating you need the ability to beat teams more than one way in order to win a championship.
You seem to be engaging in straw man related activities. You are absolutely free to go ahead and agree with your own statements
You seem to be engaging in straw man related activities. You are absolutely free to go ahead and agree with your own statements
Also ... Humped?
The Humped Tropes , is that a band?
Straw man hey? How exactly am I refuting your argument when I’m simply just explaining what you said using your own exact terms? I’m not even sure what you are arguing.
The concept of hockey team “identity” is an emotionally potent oversimplification. If you ask most hockey fans to explain it they’ll probably spout some other vague irrelevant phrase like “they gotta play with heart” or “they have to go the next”.
It’s overused archaic nonsense.
The fact that you’re falling for it would make Bieksa laugh.
He’s trolling you. And you’ve bit hook line & sinker.
On how many teams do you think a player has heard “identity” before he gets to the NHL? If you don’t have something better as a hockey professional at that level, they’ll have tuned you out before you’ve started to explain your “identity”.
Why don’t you just explain the “identity” of 50/50 puck battles? Or maybe hockey sense/facing the play/stick on puck?
I’ll wait while you can go back and check your references in Gillis’s job application.
If how a team plays was as simple as “identity” there would be no need for sports psychologists. (How’s this previous sentence for a real straw man argument?)
Last edited by Boreal; 01-28-2021 at 12:23 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Boreal For This Useful Post:
Example. Sure, winning 50/50 battles is important. Judging how much you are willing to engage in a 50/50 battle is also important. Real time decision making is obviously key. You can’t win the war if you lose the battles
Strategy and tactics are different. Planning and scheduling are different
Your statement about waiting for me to check Gillis’s application does nothing to earn you respect.
Identity is not the be-all, end-all in and of itself and I never said it was. I do believe it is a useful tool for communication and motivation
Frankly I am getting the impression you are looking to win some argument in your head that I’m not a part of. So you go to the parking lot, get started without me, and when I figure out what you are worked up about, maybe I’ll see you out there
So will I. You can't win at ‘Rock, Scissors, Paper’ when your only move is ‘Rock’.
Fair enough. You also cant win without Rock. You can be skilled and if your not going to go into the hardnosed areas or win the puck battles you wont win. so yes. A cup contender will play with skill, will play fast and most importantly they play with tenacity. Tell me one team that ever won a cup floating or not buying into giving it 110 percent on the ice. It doesn't happen. Teams have definetely won in the past without skill or speed and purely off of toughness/effort. But without it? never.
Obviously we saw the team play hard-nosed hockey as recently as last summer, also without Hamonic. So the group isn't incapable of it.
And when Calgary had the bruisers on its blue line, it was getting destroyed by Vancouver. Finishing checks is all they could do then. Canucks blew us out on a regular basis.
Now we're manhandling them.
I think Vancouver loyal Bieksa is just taking his opportunity to get some licks in on the current Flames group, which owned him (with Ferland) a few years back. And the group is still overall quite good despite his comments.
I saw an identity in period 1 WPG, both Canuck games, and stretches of the Toronto games. A fast skating group with relentless forecheck when they're on. There are issues with the fourth line, but the top two lines have been lethal.
Pumping in some ogres for toughness while sacrificing skill is not an answer in this day and age. And Robyn Regehrs arguably no longer grow on trees anywhere. It's a nearly extinct type of player. There's perhaps two or three true tough guys on your average team now, that's normal.
Maybe Bieksa should focus on the identity of the Canucks, cause they're way more butter soft than us when it comes to letting guys fly in and out of the slot all night. But hey, if him dissing us fires up the team then I'll be glad he said something.
The Following User Says Thank You to djsFlames For This Useful Post:
Why don't we just call it what it is, then? A team with "identity" is one that is highly competitive and tough to play against. I don't see why we would make it any more complicated than this: good teams are difficult to beat.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
...because when you put it so simply, it is unimaginable why this team hasn’t been able to put that together for so long.
I must have missed the part where there was only room for one type of identity, tough.
How about good transition team, team that forchecks you in to submition, a team that's stingy defensively, a team that traps to win games. And on and on. Teams like to label themselves because those labels become like mission statements. Every player that comes in has something to buy in to. Otherwise it's just a bunch of individuals.
It's basically a team characteristic, the way of life so to speak.
What's the Flames identity? Jekyll and Hyde fits. You never know what you are gonna get.
The Following User Says Thank You to Red For This Useful Post:
"Identity", was Sutter's equivalent to "process", back around '04. Then he built a team that would at least beat the **** out of the other team badly, even if they lost on the scoreboard.
Identity is definitely a thing. Bieksa actually did a great job of describing his team's, yet many still don't see it.
Also, having an identity does not mean that you only play one way. Hockey is a game that ebbs and flows, and to be successful, you need to be able to win in different ways. Of course. That does NOT preclude having an identity.
As for the Flames, I also agree with Bieksa. I think the team lacks leadership and lacks passion. I guess that is its identity, or its lack thereof. It is apparent that you can deter their will to compete. not everyone of course, but several of the core players.
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Example. Sure, winning 50/50 battles is important. Judging how much you are willing to engage in a 50/50 battle is also important. Real time decision making is obviously key. You can’t win the war if you lose the battles
Strategy and tactics are different. Planning and scheduling are different
Your statement about waiting for me to check Gillis’s application does nothing to earn you respect.
Identity is not the be-all, end-all in and of itself and I never said it was. I do believe it is a useful tool for communication and motivation
Frankly I am getting the impression you are looking to win some argument in your head that I’m not a part of. So you go to the parking lot, get started without me, and when I figure out what you are worked up about, maybe I’ll see you out there
You really should start charging Bieksa for living rent free in your head.
Obviously team identity is a thing. Do you not have a pretty good idea of what kind of game to expect when you play the Leafs? Or the Islanders, or the Wild, or the Blues?
Doesn't mean you have to commit yourself to a specific style of play to be a good team, though. I mean, what is the Lightning's team identity, other than "we're good at hockey"?
For the Flames, this is an obvious transition year. Previously, the aim has been to make the team into Carolina west, and not just by taking their players and coach. With the Hurricanes, you might say their goaltending situation is suspect but they're very deep on the blue line. That seemed to be the situation here for a while. Now, Calgary has a clear-cut #1 goalie, but the blue line now skews either very young (Andersson and Valimaki still trying to establish who they are and Hanifin just about to enter what should be his prime) or old (Giordano and Tanev are past their prime). So the question marks are there now - can the young guys become top-end defensemen, and can the old guys hang on and be productive for a couple more seasons. That doesn't make for an obvious team identity, but what is obvious is that if the answer turns out to be "yes" to those latter two questions, the team will be good anyway.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
