Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

Recommended Posts

Hey I was Trying to be supportive :)

 

We are definitely upgraded.   But we have been upgraded in the past, and screwed it all up.  I have questions.  Many questions.

 

But I specifically support:

  • The acquisition of Elliot
  • The acquisition of Parsons
  • The acquisition of Schneider

 

The acquisition of Johnson and Rittich have me confused, although I am hoping for the best for both of them.

 

I am sure you can imagine my thoughts on Ortio.  I hope these new prospects have a better fate.  Actually...I hope Ortio has a better fate too.  I hope he rocks it this year, wins the SHL championship, and comes back to the NHL next year.

 

I am unlikely to stop complaining about goaltending this year (of course it will be better).

 

 

But, more concerning, is that I may not be the only one who still complains.   I base that on the fact that we did not upgrade our defence, and did not address goaltender coaching and development meaningfully.

I once knew one of the Flames owners Doc Seamans and in talking about goalies he said " you can never have to many good goalies because you can always trade them". They are like the pitching fraternity of baseball. I think we are sitting good with our goaltending pipeline presently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time to close the book on Ortio's time in the NHL.  Too many younger guys coming into the league.  Unless he manages to be consistent in Europe for more than a year, you won't see him back.  

 

You might be right, but he still won't be as old as Kipper's real break into the NHL, until next year.

 

IMHO, what matters more, is that he needs to stand out.  He's made the right moves for that to happen.  He's put himself in the right environment.  His agent done good.  The rest is up to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be right, but he still won't be as old as Kipper's real break into the NHL, until next year.

 

IMHO, what matters more, is that he needs to stand out.  He's made the right moves for that to happen.  He's put himself in the right environment.  His agent done good.  The rest is up to him.

 

That is a really monstrous spin.  He flunked out of the NHL and wasn't able to get even a 2-way deal with an NHL club.  Now he is playing on the wrong size ice with limited exposure to a majority of NHL scouts.  This isn't a master stroke of strategy designed to get him an NHL contract in the future.  This is the last option on the list. 

 

The dude wasn't able to hold down a starter position on an AHL team with AHL roster goalies.  He couldn't crack the NHL roster of a team with the worst goal tending in modern history.  He has zero similarities to Kipper before his breakout beyond nationality.  His career in the NHL is over.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a really monstrous spin.  He flunked out of the NHL and wasn't able to get even a 2-way deal with an NHL club.  Now he is playing on the wrong size ice with limited exposure to a majority of NHL scouts.  This isn't a master stroke of strategy designed to get him an NHL contract in the future.  This is the last option on the list. 

 

The dude wasn't able to hold down a starter position on an AHL team with AHL roster goalies.  He couldn't crack the NHL roster of a team with the worst goal tending in modern history.  He has zero similarities to Kipper before his breakout beyond nationality.  His career in the NHL is over.   

 

ok that's a bit harsh, I won't get into specifics but he's playing for the top team in the SHL.    Nobody gives up that spot to go play in the AHL on a one-way.   He will make considerably more money than any AHL players, and play in a considerably better league, likely as starter.

 

You might be right, but you have no way of knowing that for certain.  Goaltending castoffs from the Flames have Historically had a way of finding their way back into the league, at a somewhat surprising frequency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goaltending development depends a lot on the goalies themselves.  Gillies will get tons of ice this season.  Parsons will go back to junior.  

 

Johnson played 1/2 a season, so he is there in case we want to limit Elliott to less than 60.  Who else were we going to use?  Rittich was signed to have a backup for Gillies.  You don't want to have your current #2 goalie prospect turning pro to be a AHL backup do you?

McDonald will see plenty of ice in the ECHL.  Probably rotates with Rittich to keep fresh as well.

 

All I'm saying, is that there is a zero percent chance of things actually going as described above, even if that was the intended plan.  And Im not sure Rittich knows he's the AHL backup.

 

I was never a fan of acquiring Ramo, or Hiller, for similar reasons.   We argued about it lots, I was apparently not the "voice of reason", and yet...here we are.

 

Don't have the time for quite as much arguing this year.  Just saying, I don't see how Johnson or Rittich fit into the plans realistically.  Easier to let time tell than to bicker about it on here.

 

I understand the Ortio decision. Somewhat.  But I don't agree with it.  Or how it was handled.   Also, haven't given up on him.   I'll do that If, and only if, he doesn't come up big this year.  That would be the nail in the coffin for me. 

 

I've said my piece, for now :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems too obvious to argue about it.  Johnson was better than most backup goalies in the NHL last year and we need one.  

 

Rittich could steal the job from Gillies, but he wasn't brought here to be the guy.  If he doesn't know that, then he should find out soon enough.  It's not like a long list of teams were talking to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok that's a bit harsh, I won't get into specifics but he's playing for the top team in the SHL.    Nobody gives up that spot to go play in the AHL on a one-way.   He will make considerably more money than any AHL players, and play in a considerably better league, likely as starter.

The SHL is not a considerably better league then the AHL, not in any way. Its a different league, on a bigger ice but the comparables in terms of quality are just not there, there is a reason kylington came over to play for stockton vice playing in the SHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SHL is not a considerably better league then the AHL, not in any way. Its a different league, on a bigger ice but the comparables in terms of quality are just not there, there is a reason kylington came over to play for stockton vice playing in the SHL.

 

Maybe we're getting a little off topic now.   Possibly, Ortio is inherently off topic now.  Whether I like it or not...even I'm not particularly interested in arguing about it after the fact.

 

But, Kylington came over here for three reasons:

 

1.  He was struggling in the SHL (because...yes...it's hard)

2.  To adapt to to North American Ice

3.  The third reason is an unfortunate reason (rumor only) that should have no place in hockey, and definitely has nothing to do with league difficulty, or goaltending, or Ortio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we're getting a little off topic now.   Possibly, Ortio is inherently off topic now.  Whether I like it or not...even I'm not particularly interested in arguing about it after the fact.

 

But, Kylington came over here for three reasons:

 

1.  He was struggling in the SHL (because...yes...it's hard)

2.  To adapt to to North American Ice

3.  The third reason is an unfortunate reason (rumor only) that should have no place in hockey, and definitely has nothing to do with league difficulty, or goaltending, or Ortio.

Not to belabor this goalie discussion but looking back to obtaining Hiller and trying to advance Ramo or Ortio was about availability for a team entering a rebuild period. I have to believe getting Hiller was no more than trying to provide some veteran stability for the team with the hope Ramo could over take him. We all know this just didn't happen. Then the situation shifts to availability and I think we are very fortunate to have ended up with Elliott and Johnson even if it is for 1 year. We now have a quality pipeline of goalies to build on again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/09/2016 at 7:19 PM, travel_dude said:

It seems too obvious to argue about it.  Johnson was better than most backup goalies in the NHL last year and we need one.  

 

 

Cough cough...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, travel_dude said:

 

Are you implying that he wasn't one of the better backups in the NHL last year?

 

 

Well obviously I must be, because the notion that you might have been wrong to pin All of last season on goaltending, or the notion that you were ever wrong about anything, actually, would be absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Well obviously I must be, because the notion that you might have been wrong to pin All of last season on goaltending, or the notion that you were ever wrong about anything, actually, would be absurd.

Was all the fault of last season the goaltending? No. Was a majority of it? Yep.

 

Let's reverse your argument, from all failure is not how bad the goaltending is but how bad the defense is to all success is not on how good is goaltending but on how good the defense is. Does the inverse of your argument make sense still? If it does, I guess Price isn't really that good and Montreal has a great defense. Similarly, Quick must not be all that great, but LA's defense is.

Since the inverse doesn't make sense, it follows that the original argument doesn't make sense. If argument A = result B, then argument 1/A must equal result 1/B. If 1/A <//> 1/B, then A = B cannot be true either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, xstrike said:

Was all the fault of last season the goaltending? No. Was a majority of it? Yep.

 

Let's reverse your argument, from all failure is not how bad the goaltending is but how bad the defense is to all success is not on how good is goaltending but on how good the defense is. Does the inverse of your argument make sense still? If it does, I guess Price isn't reallActy that good and Montreal has a great defense. Similarly, Quick must not be all that great, but LA's defense is.

Since the inverse doesn't make sense, it follows that the original argument doesn't make sense. If argument A = result B, then argument 1/A must equal result 1/B. If 1/A <//> 1/B, then A = B cannot be true either.

Actually montreal doesnt really have that good of a D corp, ours is better. But I will agree that good defense can make a goaltender look good, but the inverse is true that a bad goaltender can make a good defense look bad. Our defense zone coverage last year was bad along with our goaltending being bad, it had nothing to do with the players on our defense being bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AlbertaBoy12 said:

Actually montreal doesnt really have that good of a D corp, ours is better. But I will agree that good defense can make a goaltender look good, but the inverse is true that a bad goaltender can make a good defense look bad. Our defense zone coverage last year was bad along with our goaltending being bad, it had nothing to do with the players on our defense being bad.

That was my point.

 

All failure isn't goaltending nor all defense; all success isn't all goaltending nor all defense.

positive goaltending + positive defense = positive results

negative goaltending + negative defense = negative results

negative goaltending + positive defense or positive goaltending + negative defense = results depend on the absolute value of goaltending and defense. So it's not provable that the defense is bad. I don't think anyone would argue goaltending was positive. Defense was either negative or not positive enough to outweigh the goaltending. Change the goaltending into a positive and then you can evaluate whether D is + or -. I think we'll find out this season.

 

(I just came out of geophysics class if you couldn't tell. Equations. Sorry to subject y'all to it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, xstrike said:

That was my point.

 

All failure isn't goaltending nor all defense; all success isn't all goaltending nor all defense.

positive goaltending + positive defense = positive results

negative goaltending + negative defense = negative results

negative goaltending + positive defense or positive goaltending + negative defense = results depend on the absolute value of goaltending and defense. So it's not provable that the defense is bad. I don't think anyone would argue goaltending was positive. Defense was either negative or not positive enough to outweigh the goaltending. Change the goaltending into a positive and then you can evaluate whether D is + or -. I think we'll find out this season.

 

(I just came out of geophysics class if you couldn't tell. Equations. Sorry to subject y'all to it.)

 

OMG lol...you Should be sorry :)

 

Let's think of this in terms of scientific method then lol...  

 

The Flames have set up the closest we'll ever get to a controlled experiment in hockey.

 

  1. They finished last season worst in the league for goals against
  2. They changed VERY LITTLE of their team, and almost None of their Defense.  (Controlled environment)
  3. They switched out 100% of their goaltending with proven goalies (an admitted upgrade)

 

If goaltending was truly the Main problem last year, then we should see a Dramatic improvement this year.   That is your hypothesis.

 

Preseason is barely an indicator, and not statistically or factually significant.   But it's all we have to go on right now, and ...  yeah...Not looking good for the experiment at the moment.

 

In fairness, none of this matters yet.

 

But I "cough" nonetheless :)      (because I'm seeing familiar tendencies and habits on the ice that are leading to similar results)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

Preseason is barely an indicator, and not statistically or factually significant.   But it's all we have to go on right now, and ...  yeah...Not looking good for the experiment at the moment.

 

 

Flames Preseason ranking:

 

10th in Goals Against

2nd in Goals Against Average

 

No, that experiment looks terrible. Sure looks to me like goaltending isn't making a difference. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

OMG lol...you Should be sorry :)

 

Let's think of this in terms of scientific method then lol...  

 

The Flames have set up the closest we'll ever get to a controlled experiment in hockey.

 

  1. They finished last season worst in the league for goals against
  2. They changed VERY LITTLE of their team, and almost None of their Defense.  (Controlled environment)
  3. They switched out 100% of their goaltending with proven goalies (an admitted upgrade)

 

If goaltending was truly the Main problem last year, then we should see a Dramatic improvement this year.   That is your hypothesis.

 

Preseason is barely an indicator, and not statistically or factually significant.   But it's all we have to go on right now, and ...  yeah...Not looking good for the experiment at the moment.

 

In fairness, none of this matters yet.

 

But I "cough" nonetheless :)      (because I'm seeing familiar tendencies and habits on the ice that are leading to similar results)

The only time the flames have been horrid defensively was last night, the rest of the preseason there has been a big change in the way they have played defense.

 

Oh and as I said above bad goaltending can make a good defense look bad, as cross pointed out the stats have sure changed in the preseason even tho you havent noticed a change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Flames Preseason ranking:

 

10th in Goals Against

2nd in Goals Against Average

 

No, that experiment looks terrible. Sure looks to me like goaltending isn't making a difference. 

 

Fair enough, I'll shut up.

 

I haven't really watched the games Elliot played in.  Don't see a lot of teams playing their starters, but that said I haven't seen them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well so far Chad is no better than Rams was perhaps even less of a player in the few games he has played his save % is dreadful I didn't have the opportunity to watch so only can go by shots   Calgary should of had at least 1 goal perhaps most were just out of danger or scoring chances. To this point looks like chad is just a bad choice the kid has not stood on his head not very convincing player in my eyes to date. Hope he gets better or we could be looking at a waver player and a swap between gillies and Chad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sportsnet ranked top 20 @ all positions. I think both Brodie & Gio were in the top 10 on D while Elliot was a surprising  top 10.

 

I'm going by memory as they appeared with a different position every day for a week. Some surprises in there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zima said:

Well so far Chad is no better than Rams was perhaps even less of a player in the few games he has played his save % is dreadful I didn't have the opportunity to watch so only can go by shots   Calgary should of had at least 1 goal perhaps most were just out of danger or scoring chances. To this point looks like chad is just a bad choice the kid has not stood on his head not very convincing player in my eyes to date. Hope he gets better or we could be looking at a waver player and a swap between gillies and Chad.

 

Since you didn't watch the game, you don't have that much to go on to be able to have an informed opinion...

 

The D was pretty bad last night and Johnson was screened on a couple of those goals...   If you don't see the puck, you can't stop it unless it happens to hit you...

 

Time will tell, but is way to early to write Johnson off as a bad choice at this point...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zima said:

Well so far Chad is no better than Rams was perhaps even less of a player in the few games he has played his save % is dreadful I didn't have the opportunity to watch so only can go by shots   Calgary should of had at least 1 goal perhaps most were just out of danger or scoring chances. To this point looks like chad is just a bad choice the kid has not stood on his head not very convincing player in my eyes to date. Hope he gets better or we could be looking at a waver player and a swap between gillies and Chad.

 

1 hour ago, Carty said:

 

Since you didn't watch the game, you don't have that much to go on to be able to have an informed opinion...

 

The D was pretty bad last night and Johnson was screened on a couple of those goals...   If you don't see the puck, you can't stop it unless it happens to hit you...

 

Time will tell, but is way to early to write Johnson off as a bad choice at this point...

I dont think either game where johnson got roasted was bad playing on his part, it almost looked like he had some bad looks and bad bounces that really took the game from him. We arent talking bout similar situation to ramo in my opinion, and as carty said the D was terrible last night.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i will take from the last 2 comments the D in front of Van was spectacular seen all 35 shots and no problem seeing every shot and poor Chad just had no chance on any of those goals. You do realize Calgary did out shoot Van right I might not have seen the game but did listen to the game on the Radio and didn't sound as bad as the score has dictated. Every D will have a bad night there is a reason for a goalie they are expected to stop the puck no? again we did out shoot and play from what I heard on the Radio ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...