Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
CheersMan

Flames Defense

Recommended Posts

I agree, our top four are fine. But what if one of them goes down? It would be nice to have another 4/5 guy on the roster who can step up. As it stands now, Smid/engelland/diaz are a terrifying option to play top 4 role if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, our top four are fine. But what if one of them goes down? It would be nice to have another 4/5 guy on the roster who can step up. As it stands now, Smid/engelland/diaz are a terrifying option to play top 4 role if needed.

 

I think we are agreeing  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fully with Cheers on that as well.

 

The top 4 don't need tinkering, possibly for a few years really. Our top pair has the 1st and 3rd highest +/-, Russel has the most blocked shots, and Wideman has the 2nd most goals.

 

I'm pretty sure most teams would kill to have that collection of stats.

 

 

 

Diaz isn't terrible. His stats are very hurt playing with Engellend as much as he does. He's a decent PP quaterback. Do I want him in the top 4? NO, but I think he's our best 5/6 option currently.

 

 

Engellend has the 12th worst +/- of defencemen and 3 points. Smid has the 16th worst +/- of defencemen and ONE point. (and throw in that the only goal against tonight was because Engellend blocked Hiller from getting in front of it)

 

Hard to find a worse pairing of stats.

 

If we need to make any trade before the deadline It needs to be for a decent 4-6 Dman for the bottom pairing. Otherwise we'll get killed in the home stretch and playoffs when they're on the ice. 

 

Its our one glaring weak spot. Right Wing isn't great either, but its servicable, and many of our C or LW can play there, and Poirier coming up next year will hugely bolster it.

 

D has to be the priority right now I think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BTW, not impressed enough with our top D yet?

 

 

They are ranked 1st (Gio), 15 (brodie), 20 (Wideman) and 49 (Russell) in D-man scoring league wide.

 

You know how many other teams have FOUR defencement in the top 50 of D scoring? NONE!

 

Dallas and Anaheim have 3.

 

That's it above 2.

 

That's not a group I change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flames win vs SJ

e818eb60677bf7eed50d1dc3aab4da39.png

I think our top 4 dmen are getting the job done, we don’t need to tinker with these 4 guys at this time. I’ve been reading suggestions all over the place about adding a top 1-4 dman. Why? Why would you want to mess with the chemistry that is getting the job done? Why sacrifice the future (picks and prospects) for what could turn out to be just a rental anyways.

-------------

My question is; if you add this 1-4 dman which existing dman do you plan on sending to the 3rd pairing? Our 3rd pairing dmen are getting 10 min a night. Do you want Russell down there? I don’t. Do you want Wideman, our most expensive and productive goal scoring dman down there? I don’t. I agree, we could improve our bottom pairing but adding a top 4 at this time is a mistake IMO, we don’t need it. If we add a dman it should be a bottom pairing defensive dman that reduces the times the puck enters our net.

My bigger worry is that our top 4 is playing too much. Russell and Wideman are averaging over 23 mins a night, that's a lot for a 2nd pairing. I would hate to see them worn out. Wideman still worries me in the defensive zone, he makes a few more turnovers than I would like and it could end up costing us down the stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a good case can be made that the Flames have probably the second best top 4 D in the league. I look at St Louis and think they have the best top 4, but I can't think of another team with a better top 4 than us.

 

You can't make changes because one of our top 4 might go down. You make additions and add or have depth. It is too expensive and we can not afford to go shopping for a top 4 D that likely isn't going to be an upgrade to what we have now. Russel and Wideman have good chemistry. Gio and Brodie have show they might be the best pairing in the league... debatable but they are close...

 

Philly has been trying for years to get a top 4 D to build around.. it is near impossible...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fully with Cheers on that as well.

 

The top 4 don't need tinkering, possibly for a few years really. Our top pair has the 1st and 3rd highest +/-, Russel has the most blocked shots, and Wideman has the 2nd most goals.

 

I'm pretty sure most teams would kill to have that collection of stats.

 

 

 

Diaz isn't terrible. His stats are very hurt playing with Engellend as much as he does. He's a decent PP quaterback. Do I want him in the top 4? NO, but I think he's our best 5/6 option currently.

 

 

Engellend has the 12th worst +/- of defencemen and 3 points. Smid has the 16th worst +/- of defencemen and ONE point. (and throw in that the only goal against tonight was because Engellend blocked Hiller from getting in front of it)

 

Hard to find a worse pairing of stats.

 

If we need to make any trade before the deadline It needs to be for a decent 4-6 Dman for the bottom pairing. Otherwise we'll get killed in the home stretch and playoffs when they're on the ice. 

 

Its our one glaring weak spot.

 

D has to be the priority right now I think.

 

BTW, not impressed enough with our top D yet?

 

 

They are ranked 1st (Gio), 15 (brodie), 20 (Wideman) and 49 (Russell) in D-man scoring league wide.

 

You know how many other teams have FOUR defencement in the top 50 of D scoring? NONE!

 

Dallas and Anaheim have 3.

 

That's it above 2.

 

That's not a group I change.

If you're basing our "terrible" 5/6 D on 16th and 12th worse +- then I think you're off base. Making an assumption of 2 bad D per team, (not true I'm sure but for arguments sake) that means there's at least 7 other teams out there with worse bottom pairing, probably more. They also provide toughness, protection and PK. I'm not saying they are the best, but they play a role and are not terrible in that role. If they start playing terrible I'm fully confident we've got D on the farm that can come in and fill in in an emergency.

Right now the team is very cohesive and playing for each other. That means a lot. If we can bring in someone who is definitely better at little cost, then great, but I don't see it happening. The team we have has gotten us to second in the Pacific Division, and the team seems to be getting better as they go. Don't mess with success!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're basing our "terrible" 5/6 D on 16th and 12th worse +- then I think you're off base. Making an assumption of 2 bad D per team, (not true I'm sure but for arguments sake) that means there's at least 7 other teams out there with worse bottom pairing, probably more. They also provide toughness, protection and PK. I'm not saying they are the best, but they play a role and are not terrible in that role. If they start playing terrible I'm fully confident we've got D on the farm that can come in and fill in in an emergency.

 

There are 29 defencemen with double digit +/-. (about 10%). The teams with a bottom two +/- worse than us? Arizona and Edmonton. The bottom +/- are dominated by all six of Buffalo's defenders being -11 or worse.  Those are the three worst teams in the league. Not good company.

 

Smid averages 14 minutes a game. Engellend 13.

 

Prosser (MIN) and Summers (ARI) are the only other players with double digit negatives that play less than 15 minutes a night. Most of the rest average 17-25 minutes a night. So essentially Smid and Engellend accumulate a minus at twice the rate of these other defencemen.

 

Eckman-Larson, Faulk, Savard, Yandle and Petrey all may have similar minus stats, but they're also putting up double digit points (though that's really scare about how many they may let in). Smid and Engellend have 3 and 1 respectively.

 

There may be an element of Toughness and Protection that we're lacking from other players, but there's no way that we can't find that with some upside on +/- and/or scoring.

 

Right now the team is very cohesive and playing for each other. That means a lot. If we can bring in someone who is definitely better at little cost, then great, but I don't see it happening. The team we have has gotten us to second in the Pacific Division, and the team seems to be getting better as they go. Don't mess with success!

 

We don't have to move pieces, and I certainly wouldn't trade much, but we do have a variety of options at the trade deadline to upgrade what is undoubtedly our weakest position. If Engellend and Smid were't so bad, Wideman/Russel (and even Gio/Brodie) might be able to play lower ice times if we could trust our Bottom 2.

 

We could use another RW, but with Poirier coming, there's no urgency this season for that, and we have lots of LWs/Cs that can go over if needed.

 

I agree that I wouldn't mess with the team, various chemistries are becoming quite clear to help shape the future of the team, and I'm happy with that. But if there's a weakness it should still be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are fragile at D. Our top pairing is really good. Our second pairing is okay, but we rely a lot on our top pairing to put the second pairing in favourable situations. Wideman is also inconsistent and can go through pretty rough stretches defensively.

Our biggest issue is depth though. Having a strong top 4 goes beyond simply having 4 good guys. We don't have anyone below them that can play up if we have an injury. Not on the bottom pairing and not in the system. That makes our top 4 very fragile as a single injury could derail us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are fragile at D. Our top pairing is really good. Our second pairing is okay, but we rely a lot on our top pairing to put the second pairing in favourable situations. Wideman is also inconsistent and can go through pretty rough stretches defensively.

Our biggest issue is depth though. Having a strong top 4 goes beyond simply having 4 good guys. We don't have anyone below them that can play up if we have an injury. Not on the bottom pairing and not in the system. That makes our top 4 very fragile as a single injury could derail us.

Your point is why I have been pushing for a 2-5 guy before the deadline. It works 3 ways, allows less ice time for our current guys, provides more depth, and is a buffering in case of an injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point is why I have been pushing for a 2-5 guy before the deadline. It works 3 ways, allows less ice time for our current guys, provides more depth, and is a buffering in case of an injury.

I agree. And I think Treliving is looking. He will want someone that we can get without unloading big young assets. He will also want someone that he thinks can be a long term option.

I still like Franson. I get he is a pending free agent and will be expensive to sign. But I think he fits the bill nicely for the Flames and I would be okay with giving him a decent contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. And I think Treliving is looking. He will want someone that we can get without unloading big young assets. He will also want someone that he thinks can be a long term option.

I still like Franson. I get he is a pending free agent and will be expensive to sign. But I think he fits the bill nicely for the Flames and I would be okay with giving him a decent contract.

I like Franson as well. I would rather take my chances with getting him in the off season rather than trade any pieces Toronto would want in exchange. Unless the Leafs owners, President and GM have gone totally coo-coo they're going to be asking a lot....and that will basically leave the Flames trying to sign him before he hits the market. Obviously if he doesn't sign a contract we lose. So for that reason alone I'd rather try to land him as a UFA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a good case can be made that the Flames have probably the second best top 4 D in the league. I look at St Louis and think they have the best top 4, but I can't think of another team with a better top 4 than us.

Weber, Josi, Jones & Ellis?

 

Keith, Seabrook. Hjalmarsson & Oduja?

 

Enstrom, Trouba, Bogosian, Stuart with Buff in case 1 (or more) is injured?

 

All 3 are in the western conference. With St. L that puts the Flames 5th.

************************************************************

I could look to the east but think I made my point. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weber, Josi, Jones & Ellis?

 

Keith, Seabrook. Hjalmarsson & Oduja?

 

Enstrom, Trouba, Bogosian, Stuart with Buff in case 1 (or more) is injured?

 

All 3 are in the western conference. With St. L that puts the Flames 5th.

************************************************************

And our record is 4-3 vs those teams, maybe you should look to the east.  :)

 

I missed STL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Franson as well. I would rather take my chances with getting him in the off season rather than trade any pieces Toronto would want in exchange. Unless the Leafs owners, President and GM have gone totally coo-coo they're going to be asking a lot....and that will basically leave the Flames trying to sign him before he hits the market. Obviously if he doesn't sign a contract we lose. So for that reason alone I'd rather try to land him as a UFA.

Franson maybe had for a little as a B level prospect and a 3rd, 2nd if he re signs. We should get a 2nd rounder for Glenny at the deadline and a 3rd or a 2nd for Ramo. We shold be abale to leverage something with out givien up anything, but I do target Franson. Franson would be a great assets to take some of the pressure off the guys at the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Franson as well. I would rather take my chances with getting him in the off season rather than trade any pieces Toronto would want in exchange. Unless the Leafs owners, President and GM have gone totally coo-coo they're going to be asking a lot....and that will basically leave the Flames trying to sign him before he hits the market. Obviously if he doesn't sign a contract we lose. So for that reason alone I'd rather try to land him as a UFA.

I am less worried that he wouldn't sign; we have dollars to spend and would give him a decent deal, Burkie is here and probably respected by Franson, and there is a future playoff team here (now or soon). Any deal could include a conditional pick if BT and BB were worried. In the long run, it would be cheaper to get him here and sign him than try to sign him in the off-season.

Franson maybe had for a little as a B level prospect and a 3rd, 2nd if he re signs. We should get a 2nd rounder for Glenny at the deadline and a 3rd or a 2nd for Ramo. We shold be abale to leverage something with out givien up anything, but I do target Franson. Franson would be a great assets to take some of the pressure off the guys at the top.

If we were the only bidders, that deal might fly. He is a good target for teams trying to make or compete in the playoffs. Maybe LA makes a trade for him, or DET, or some other team.

GlenX has to want to be traded. If he does, he may not fetch a 2nd. Ramo may not get you much. If you do trade him, you are ending the season for the AHL team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are fragile at D. Our top pairing is really good.  the best in the league.

 

Fixed that for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Franson maybe had for a little as a B level prospect and a 3rd, 2nd if he re signs. We should get a 2nd rounder for Glenny at the deadline and a 3rd or a 2nd for Ramo. We shold be abale to leverage something with out givien up anything, but I do target Franson. Franson would be a great assets to take some of the pressure off the guys at the top.

I didn't realize he could be had for so little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am less worried that he wouldn't sign; we have dollars to spend and would give him a decent deal, Burkie is here and probably respected by Franson, and there is a future playoff team here (now or soon). Any deal could include a conditional pick if BT and BB were worried. In the long run, it would be cheaper to get him here and sign him than try to sign him in the off-season.If we were the only bidders, that deal might fly. He is a good target for teams trying to make or compete in the playoffs. Maybe LA makes a trade for him, or DET, or some other team.

GlenX has to want to be traded. If he does, he may not fetch a 2nd. Ramo may not get you much. If you do trade him, you are ending the season for the AHL team.

What do you think it would take to land Franson via trade. 2nd rounder and a higher end prospect like a Wotherspoon? I would think they'd be looking for D as they will probably try to unload Phaneuf as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think it would take to land Franson via trade. 2nd rounder and a higher end prospect like a Wotherspoon? I would think they'd be looking for D as they will probably try to unload Phaneuf as well.

Teams heading for the playoffs can likely afford a 1st. Wouldn't mean that much to a top team like DET.

Add a good DET prospect, and it would be seen as a win for TO. They might need to send back a D to make the $$ work. Frankly I don't know.

If it is us, I doubt TO trades a D for a D prospect with limited offense. More likely a forward prospect; Hanowski? :) Seriously, likely a guy like Klimchuk or Shore (not going anywhere).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are stuck with Phaneuf and it looks good on them. Franson is UFA after this season so I wouldn't give up more than a 2nd round pick for him. Trade Glencross for a 2nd and give to TOR for Franson. Otherwise take a serious run at Franson in the offseason.



Should we get a player like Franson and play him with Wideman, we get better throughout our D corps. Russell moves down and makes the 3rd paring that much better. We could use a move like this for the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are stuck with Phaneuf and it looks good on them. Franson is UFA after this season so I wouldn't give up more than a 2nd round pick for him. Trade Glencross for a 2nd and give to TOR for Franson. Otherwise take a serious run at Franson in the offseason.

Should we get a player like Franson and play him with Wideman, we get better throughout our D corps. Russell moves down and makes the 3rd paring that much better. We could use a move like this for the playoffs.

Then you would have 2 RHS playing together. I would put either one of Wideman of Franson on the 3rd pairing. IMO Russell has been our 3rd best defenseman behind Giordano and Brodie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you would have 2 RHS playing together. I would put either one of Wideman of Franson on the 3rd pairing. IMO Russell has been our 3rd best defenseman behind Giordano and Brodie.

 

Having solid offence on three lines would be scary-good.  Minutes could be balanced better, but Engelland becomes a 7th D.  I don't see him be able to play (defense) on the left side. Diaz is respectable there but Wideman or Franson gives us better one-timer options on the 3rd pair RD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're basing our "terrible" 5/6 D on 16th and 12th worse +- then I think you're off base. Making an assumption of 2 bad D per team, (not true I'm sure but for arguments sake) that means there's at least 7 other teams out there with worse bottom pairing, probably more. They also provide toughness, protection and PK. I'm not saying they are the best, but they play a role and are not terrible in that role. If they start playing terrible I'm fully confident we've got D on the farm that can come in and fill in in an emergency.

Right now the team is very cohesive and playing for each other. That means a lot. If we can bring in someone who is definitely better at little cost, then great, but I don't see it happening. The team we have has gotten us to second in the Pacific Division, and the team seems to be getting better as they go. Don't mess with success!

What it means is that it is only mathematically possible for 7 teams to have a worse +/- from their bottom pairing. So, at best the Flames bottom pairing is worse than the bottom pairing from 22 other teams (based on +/-.) That is nothing to brag about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Franson maybe had for a little as a B level prospect and a 3rd, 2nd if he re signs. We should get a 2nd rounder for Glenny at the deadline and a 3rd or a 2nd for Ramo. We shold be abale to leverage something with out givien up anything, but I do target Franson. Franson would be a great assets to take some of the pressure off the guys at the top.

I just spent time with TML fans. The figure there will be a bidding war for pending UFA Franson so expect a 1st rounder +.

 

Of course they figure the Leafs will win a SC before hitting 50 years since the last 1 (when team pictures were sepia). :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Franson will end going for a fair bit and won't be cheap. It's not looking to be a very good deadline and he will be one of the few top 4 dman available so I would suspect either a 1st or 2nd with a good prospect or young player will be the price just to get the leafs listening. I am a Franson fan but he is a Wideman clone so if you have any complaints about Wideman you will feel the same about Franson. I'm not prepared to pay him over 5 mill, which is amaranth what he is asking for, unless you could trade Wideman and I'm not sure that market is there. I would want to identical player making 5 plus mill on the D core.

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...