Bill Peters discusses the upcoming season (link to interview included)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I"m likely reading too much into this, but in reading Peters' comments I get the impression the organization did some reflection on why the Neal signing failed so miserably. It quickly became evident there was not a great fit for Neal on this team unless he was scoring on the first line. It really brought into question just how well thought out that signing was in the first place, and if they had alternative plans for fitting him into the lineup (and if they really did their homework on the type of player and personality they were getting).

There seems to be a lot of thought of how to make Lucic successful.

Obviously, in hindsight, Neal wasn't a good fit. And I agree that they more than likely made the assessment that there wasn't a fit for him going forward.

However, I think your assessment of the Flames' poor analysis of his place on the roster is a bit overstated. Neal hasn't been on a top line in years, so I don't think there was any major mistake in thinking that he would/could be productive in a middle six role. Questioning whether or not they did their homework seems unjustified in particular. You don't go after a guy if you haven't analysed what he brings to the table. And Treliving in particular, has a reputation for being more than diligent.

For me, the more reasonable explanation can be found in two simple facts: one, he wasn't in top shape; and two, player chemistry isn't an exact science. You can do all the analysis you want, but until the players get out on the ice together, you just don't know. Predicting Lindholm's success with the top line would have been equally as impossible. But they'll happily take that one. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

No need to question whether or not they did their homework (unless there are other reasons to do so, which I don't see).

[jlh2640]

Found it interesting that he is so high on Lucic vs what he said about Neal last year

[BigErnSalute_16]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

With Peters telegraphing his third line of Lucic-Ryan-Mangiapane (he says "middle six" a bunch of times, so clearly not 4th line- but I am actually excited to see this one; all the players are just lesser versions of Boston's first line of Lucic-Krejci-Marchand; so hopefully they gel just as well!) it has made me start to think about Bennett's role. I am hopeful that the way he played to end the season and into the playoffs has made Peter's think a top 6 role is necessary for him. Otherwise we will all be frustrated to watch Jankowski-bennett spinning their tires together on a fourth line this year.

Tkachuk-Backlund-Bennett actually sounds pretty good. I feel like we don't often see Tkachuk-Bennett together and I am not entirely sure why.

In this scenario though, Frolik is definitely given the short end of the stick and dropped to the 4th line. I used to think that we needed another top 6 forward but if we do acquire one, it's definitely going to be at the cost of Bennett performing this season.

Frolik-Jankowski-Dube/Czarnik could be a pretty decent 4th line, but it's pretty expensive. I am starting to warm up to the idea of getting rid of Frolik for peanuts.

Ya this is what I've been worried about too. Hopefully they move on from the three M line regardless of whether Frolik is here or not. I think Bennett has earned that spot for extended periods. Also I think Frolik's presence with Jankowski and Dube on the 4th line would be valuable. And honestly that line wouldn't even be the worst third line in the league let alone a 4th line so it could all work out. Would probably need to move Czarnik and put Valimaki on LTIR to make it all happen but it's possible.

[BigErnSalute_16]

Originally Posted by jlh2640

Found it interesting that he is so high on Lucic vs what he said about Neal last year

What did he say about Neal last year?

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by BigErnSalute_16

What did he say about Neal last year?

[kehatch]

It is very unlikely Neal ends up in the top line full time. Monahan isn't a speedy player and it's tough to have two slower players on a line. Which is why guys like Ferland, Lindholm, Hudler, etc have been successful up there and Neal hasn't.

But I do like that the coach is open to options. Most coaches plan their teams in pairs, but we have ours planned in full sets and it's led to a third line that is one of our two weak links (along with goal).

I would love to see us spread out the lines a bit. Pairs like Monahan/Gaudreau, Lindholm/Tkachuk, Backlund/Frolik would give us the foundation for three strong lines. From there it's a matter of inserting Lucic, Ryan, Dube, Mangiapane, Bennett, Czarnik, etc.

Maybe Ryan/Lucic are the fourth pair with the other four scattered across the four lines. Or maybe Lucic is better then we expect and plays top 9. Lots of options.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Obviously, in hindsight, Neal wasn't a good fit. And I agree that they more than likely made the assessment that there wasn't a fit for him going forward.

However, I think your assessment of the Flames' poor analysis of his place on the roster is a bit overstated. Neal hasn't been on a top line in years, so I don't think there was any major mistake in thinking that he would/could be productive in a middle six role. Questioning whether or not they did their homework seems unjustified in particular. You don't go after a guy if you haven't analysed what he brings to the table. And Treliving in particular, has a reputation for being more than diligent.

For me, the more reasonable explanation can be found in two simple facts: one, he wasn't in top shape; and two, player chemistry isn't an exact science. You can do all the analysis you want, but until the players get out on the ice together, you just don't know. Predicting Lindholm's success with the top line would have been equally as impossible. But they'll happily take that one. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

No need to question whether or not they did their homework (unless there are other reasons to do so, which I don't see).

No need to question whether they did their homework? Seems like a pretty reasonable exercise as part of a postmortem if you’re serious about avoiding similar mistakes. Do you know what homework they did?

If as you say, Neal wasn’t brought in to play the top line, where was he going to play? To me that is one of the biggest mistakes right there. There was nowhere for him to play on this team. Which isn’t taking any blame away from Neal. But as an organization you have to focus on what you can control and what you can do better. That’s what successful organizations do.