Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

The_Argus

SeniorMembers
  • Content Count

    505
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

The_Argus last won the day on February 4 2014

The_Argus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

70 Excellent

About The_Argus

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. I don't see why intent to injure needs to be part of it. Take high sticking, for instance. Players are supposed to be responsible for their sticks, and if you stick a guy in the face, you get a penalty whether you intended to do it or not. So to me, if a player is injured by a slash, the play should be reviewable after the game, and it should be an instant suspension, intent to injure or not. It's even simpler than the case of hits to the head, because the NHL obviously wants to eliminate those while keeping clean body checks as part of the game. Which can create a gray area sometimes. But with slashing, none of it is technically allowed, so it would be black and white to call. Obviously, the other thing they should do is have the refs call a penalty in game whenever they see a slash to the hands, instead of 10% of the time, or whatever it is now. Yes, this would mess with the flow of the game temporarily, just like when the league started cracking down on obstruction, but once the players realised it was being called consistently, they would do it much less. Problem solved.
  2. That's good to hear. One of my concerns with Tkachuk being a constant sparkplug and a bit of a pest out there is that his teammates might eventually get tired of having to jump into scrums to bail him out. But if he's also standing up for his teammates, I think that's going to earn him a lot of goodwill and it won't be a problem.
  3. Well, none of those ideas are mind-blowing or revolutionary. But I actually think we were not doing a good enough job in those areas. Our defense tended to be more on the passive side, instead of pressuring. (I remember watching lots of games where the other team seemed to have all the time in the world to make plays when they had the puck in the offensive zone, but when we had the puck we seemed to have very little time and make rushed decisions. That tells me that other teams were playing us more aggressively than we were playing them. And then there's the issue of falling back and shot blocking instead of pressuring...). And I think we did not work well enough as a 5 man unit. It's been talked about to death... but we were overly reliant on the stretch pass, instead of having five guys moving up the ice together, supporting each other and making short, sharp passes. I do agree with you, though, that's it's easy to talk a good game. We'll really see what Gulutzan is made of when the season starts. But I, personally, am excited about where it sounds like he wants to take the team.
  4. The_Argus

    Goaltending

    I probably would have been fine with that, but now with Ramo's big injury, I think there's just too much uncertainty to rely on him. Ortio has been decent, so at this point, I think you cut ties with Ramo, and go with Ortio and the best goalie you can find (for a reasonable price) in the off season as your duo for next year. I think a Ramo/Ortio tandem would have the potential to be solid or even very good, but at the same time, it's hard to justify bringing back 2 out of 3 of the worst goal-tending squad in the league this season (even if it's the better 2 of the 3). And that's even aside from Ramo's injury.
  5. The_Argus

    Goaltending

    Fair point, though I think it's still a legitimate concern. So I'm glad to see Hiller getting the start. I agree with Cross, after Edmonton I think you go back to Ramo (unless Hiller is stellar), because I don't really want the Flames getting back into the 1A/1B thing when Ramo is playing really well and has a lot of momentum. BUT, even if Hiller plays good, not great, I think it at least gives the coaching staff confidence to get him in the rotation a little more often (i.e., no more 12 game stretches for Ramo).
  6. The_Argus

    Goaltending

    Well, Edmonton is one of the worst teams in the league (at least in terms of the standings) and Hiller is coming off a shutout, so there's probably no better time to give him a second game and see if he can go on a run. On the other hand, Hiller still makes me very nervous, and a win against a divisional rival is really, really important. I would probably say start Hiller, though. We do need Ramo to get some rest against the weaker teams. Otherwise, in the event we do make the playoffs, we may have a Kipper scenario, where the team has rode the goalie so hard through the regular season that he doesn't have enough gas in the tank for a playoff run.
  7. Well, regardless of whether you're for or against the project, I think we can all agree that having the pretty much universally disliked (especially among Canadian fans) Bettman come and make a pitch for the project was a terrible idea and a bit of a head-scratcher. If anything, I think there would be less will among Calgary taxpayers to stump up money for the project now.
  8. When Russell comes back, what I'd like to see happen is a top 4 of Gio/Brodie/Hamilton/Wideman (in some combination or another) and a rotating bottom pairing of Russell/Engelland and Russell/Smid. Engelland/Smid together are just too immobile.
  9. I'm almost fine with keeping Russell. I think he could be a solid 5/6 guy, and with the way his season is going, he shouldn't require a ridiculous contract the way some were anticipating during the offseason. My only issue is, if we're keeping Hartley moving forward, I don't know if we can keep Russell too. I'm not sure Hartley can be trusted to give Russell a reasonable amount of ice time or role on the team. I guess the other problem is that if we want to open up spots for young guys, Russell may be the only target to move. I do want to see some more youth on the team. In my opinion, any reasonable hope of making the playoffs is gone (I will still cling to my unreasonable hope and cheer for the Flames to win all the games, but from a rational standpoint, it's game over). So I think the mindset should shift from win-now-at-all-costs toward development for next season. Clear out some dead-weight and open some spots to see what we have in some of our prospects. Try a couple dmen. Give Granlund some quality ice time (i.e., not 4th line). Bring Grant back up. Same goes for anyone else who wins a spot at the AHL level. If Ortio can find his game again in the minors, bring him up later in the season and give him a run of games like we gave Ramo so we can really evaluate him for next season.
  10. The_Argus

    Goaltending

    Oh well, I guess... The goaltending situation has been bungled right from the start of the season. I don't like the result, but at least now it's put to rest. If the team is firmly out of the playoffs later in the season, I hope (and expect) we'll see Ortio back up (assuming he's not claimed). Just to see what we have in him. I don't think the limited use we saw this season so far provided much indication one way or the other.
  11. I wouldn't say Treliving gambled and lost. The moves he made coming into this season (bringing in Hamilton and Frolik and extending Gio) were all long term moves that improve the team moving forward. He didn't trade the future to win now, which is what I would consider a gamble (and a bad one, in the Flames current situation). If anything, it's his earlier moves (signing "veteran leadership" type guys to overpriced contracts, because he thought the team would take longer to improve than it actually did), that are creating cap trouble now.
  12. The_Argus

    Goaltending

    I think it worked last year because both goalies were generally playing well, so each guy would usually get at least a few starts in a row before turning the net over. Both goalies got to rest often, but there was also some stability. This year, it has been a different goalie every night, and I think that instability just compounds the fact that none of the guys are playing that well.
  13. The_Argus

    Goaltending

    To be fair, Ramo kind of failed on that goal as well. The shutout was in his hands. But you're right, the team also blew it defensively on that one. I'm actually fine with giving Ramo a string of games. Yeah, he hasn't earned it, but none of the other goalies have either. The back-and-forth between goalies obviously isn't working, so at some point I think you need to just stick with one guy for a while and let him build some momentum, even if it means suffering through a couple stinkers. They don't really have any other options, unless a trade for a goalie comes on the table. My only gripe is that they didn't give Ortio the same chance earlier. That's Hartley for you, though. He loves his vets.
  14. The_Argus

    Goaltending

    Yeah, as a potential future key player, I don't think you even consider throwing Gillies into this mess. The Flames are only going to salvage this season if they improve both their goaltending and defense. The chance that Gillies single-highhandedly turns things around is very low, whereas the chance he gets his confidence shattered is high with the way the Flames are playing defense. Not nearly worth the risk to a team that is still, IMO, rebuilding.
  15. The_Argus

    Goaltending

    If Ortio is the backup on Friday, and this is a way of phasing him in slowly instead of throwing him in entirely cold after not playing for so long, then I'm okay with it. If it's Hiller/Ramo again on Friday, then I just don't know what to think.
×
×
  • Create New...