Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

Bwana

SeniorMembers
  • Content Count

    420
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Bwana

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. The Canucks didnt take the NW from us last season, our poor performance in the end of the season gave it to them.
  2. Well considering most years you could put a 2mil forward with Iggy and get more goals than the Sedins and a lower cap hit......... Nah I'd keep Iggy unless they threw in Mitchell as part of the deal as well as a first rnd pick. Now Canuck fans are goinna go crazy saying how BS that deal is, but seriously think about it. We're talking about a trade for our franchise player/captain who is commonly referred to as the best powerfoward in the league with multi 50+ goal seasons, who even when he has a bad year, helps his linemates have career years. Oh and we love the guy and everything about him on and off the ice. The only way we would entertain such a trade is if what we got back was in or close to the category of "too good to be true".
  3. [quote name='DL44 wrote: Bwana wrote: Dusty_Foot_Philosopher']That Pittsburgh example is quite easy to find with the amount of coach turnover in today's NHL. Dan Bylsma did an admirable job, but I think the reason Pittsburgh turned it around was the coaching change was a "wake the **** up moment" for them. You look at the talent on that team and there's no way they should have been where they were. Plus they just weren't buying into Therrien's system anymore. But don't forget... Therrien got them to a Cup Final as well. I don't think People's saying Darryl Sutter "took a bunch of nobodies" to almost winning the Cup is accurate or great when evaluating the importance of coaching. I think it's a good point and true, but it was just a perfect fit there with the personnel Calgary had for that run, not Sutter bringing in genius techniques to raise the levels of all the players. People try to say this coach is better than that coach or that coach is better than this coach, which just isn't true in my honest opinion. It's all about the coach fitting with the team dynamic, and that really can't be judged until you're far enough into the season. Allow me to introduce another sport/coach then. Phil Jackson in the NBA. He has what, 10 champ rings in 2 decades of coaching. Thats right, 50% of the the time he wins it all. Now he has done this with different franchises and different player types. He has envoked different strategies based on the different teams. I mean I could go more and more into the details, but this guy alone is living proof of how valuable a coach can be. That wouldn't be a very good example of an absolutely great coaching performance considering Jackson won his first 6 with arguably the greatest player in history, and then the next 3 with 2 of best players in the league... I mean, i'm a Jackson fan... great coach... but he's been dealt the best hands in the history of the sport as well. You know.. essentially why people don't like to give Marc Crawford much credit for being a Stanley Cup Champion Coach because of Patrick Roy. I love it when people use that excuse, it really shows the wool over the eyes.Was MJ really the best player in the world when he left UNC? Of course not, he wasn't even a first overall pick. Did MJ wins champs without Phil? No, he was there 5 years before Phil showed up and they won a total of zip during that time except a string of first round playoff exits and one appearance in a conference finals. Phil shows up and suddenly they are pulling in rings like moths to a flame. So why are we not giving Phil Jackson credit for helping to develope the best player in NBA history? Why are people saying, ya well he had MJ and so it was easy, when the coach before Phil couldnt produce even when he had MJ? You mention Phil had 2 of the greatest players in the league when he won in LA (Kobe/Shaq). Well before Phil, Kobe didnt accomplish much let alone even make the All Rookie Firs Teamt, only the 2nd. So he wasnt even in the top 5 best rookies, let alone one of the best in the league. Phil comes in and BOOM, All-Defensive First Team, NBA champs etc etc. Coincidence or pattern by design? (anyone noticing a pattern of players under Phil becomeing defencive beasts on top of their scoring abilities? Name me a few who meet this criteria not coached by the man) How come we arent giving credit for Phil, yet again, helping develope one of the best players in the history of the game? (he will go down as an all time great no doubt) Now Shaq was pretty awesome before Phil, but undisputabley better after. Hey, LA had Kobe and Shaq before Phil, but what did they accomplish without him? Other than getting swept out of playoffs, not a whole lot (granted 1 time the sweep was a conference final). Phil comes in and what happens? Phil gets a 3peat of 3peats (well his 3peats werent all back to back.....but cmon). All you have done is further promote how valuable Phil is as a coach, and thus how valuable a coach can be to a franchise. He has won 10 rings and also helped develope the best player(s) in the history of the game. He did this coming into teams who already had their players in place, yet werent winning. Once again proving just how valuable coaching is. As they say in poker, more important than the cards you have is how you play the hand. Nothing makes that more apparent than Phils story of making good players and teams into champions and legends.
  4. Allow me to introduce another sport/coach then. Phil Jackson in the NBA. He has what, 10 champ rings in 2 decades of coaching. Thats right, 50% of the the time he wins it all. Now he has done this with different franchises and different player types. He has envoked different strategies based on the different teams. I mean I could go more and more into the details, but this guy alone is living proof of how valuable a coach can be.
  5. I couldnt disagree more. Nevermind the great and accurate example The People provided, lets look at an example from this season. You guessed it, Pittsburgh Penguins! See under Michel Therrien they were 5 points out for the final playoff spot, yet they change coaches on Feb15 and get Dan Bylsma who takes them to 4th seed in the east and eventually a Cup. Criticisms of Vigneault? Ya I definately have a few, but whats the point of getting into them? Canucks fans won't see/agree with them and it will just result in a mud sling fest. I'll just say that I feel we're inheriting a better coach, but time will tell.
  6. Whats all this "WHERES CALGARY GOINNA REPLACE THE SCORING FROM BLAH BLAH BLAH"? Easy answer, by instilling a defencive system so we arent as reliant on producing a high number of goals. We got a great coach who masters a defencive style built from the goalie out....like we are. We replaced past their prime hack dmen for a young guy just entering his prime with more promise/current talent than the other hack ever had (imo atleast). Previously said coach was the guy who had our Norris candidate playing like a Norris holder, so we can expect/hope our previous Norris candidate becomes exactly that in the next season or so. And our GM has let it be known that Kipper shall not be worked to the bone in order to keep him fresh AND effective everytime he gets between the pipes. ^^ Notice how I addressed how we will "replace" the scoring we're goinna miss without even touching on offence? Or going on about how we can expect a good 10 more G from Iggy, maybe even the same # from Borque (if he doesnt miss so much of the season again), or a whole boat load more from Ollie who will actually get a chance to develope chemistry now that our system of "musical chair lines" has been booted. So why are nucks fans sooooo riled up about us replacing our scoring? Scoring wasnt an issue for us last season, infact I would consider it surplus to what we need, so why would we focus on fixing something that was working better than expected? We wouldnt because that would be a stupid thing to do. Defence was our issue, and defence is what we addressed on many levels and, on paper, quite effectively. After all, it's defence that wins championships most frequently, is it not?
  7. to be honest, I thought we had better defencive personnel than Van last year(slightly better, not drastically better), I just think it was horribley managed and equated to Vancouver having a better on ice defencive product. Now I believe we have an even stronger D personnel and a coaching staff that will manage it into one of the best (if not the) in the league. I think both goalies are over paid considering the salaries of the 4 major goalies in the conference finals. Last year Van had a better coach but this year def Calgary. I dont even thinks Fillet Mignion is that coach, he couldnt motivate Matts enough to play consistantly at a level we saw he could play at inconsistantly, and even back 2 seasons ago I remember a game where Naslund had scored, and been one of the best players of the game. Yet didnt see the ice in the last 5-4 min of the game, even when they pulled the goalie. This was a point of the yar where Nassy was the teams leading goal scorer (maybe 2nd, pretty sure first) and had scored that game, I'll always use that against Fillet. Calgary will have a better powerplay (karma please help!!!) Calgary will win the Div and end 2nd in western confernce I think Van top 6 will have a better cycle/possesion game. Calgarys top 6 will have a better physical presence and more of a goal scoring threat as Im hoping our transition steadily improves and we turn Iggy back into a sniper power forward instead of a setup cherry picker. Backup is kind of a toss up. Obviously the easy choice is going to be Calgary, that being said BSutter wont be the dummy Keenan is and wont have Kipper playing every game against a team that names starts with a letter betwen A to T. However that being said AGAIN, I think Vancouver has a better backup (Barbara is still on contract right?) and thus I think Van will be able to utilize their backup more confidantly and thus they will use it more. BTW if you couldnt tell Im a Flames fan
×
×
  • Create New...