Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
CheersMan

Flames Defense

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I do agree JJ. Though as much as I love the Hedman's and Pietrangelo's, D has to be by committee. Sutter should be able to improve our neutral zone play which theoretically should improve our team D.

The Sens dominated us last year by flying through the neutral zone. Then they just kept exploiting it.

 

 

Season 2 Nbc GIF by The Office

 

But seriously lol, for sure, neutral zone play and team cohesiveness are a part of the defence puzzle.  no disputing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with you JJ, but I hear what your saying. The D is a big question mark going into next season, no question.

 

But the Flames have one of the youngest D in the NHL and it shouldn't be a shock to see any of them step up into big roles. 

 

Do I think they are going to end next season with the best top 4 in the league? No. But I am much more comfortable they will find impact players at D then I am they will at C. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, kehatch said:

I don't agree with you JJ, but I hear what your saying. The D is a big question mark going into next season, no question.

 

But the Flames have one of the youngest D in the NHL and it shouldn't be a shock to see any of them step up into big roles. 

 

Do I think they are going to end next season with the best top 4 in the league? No. But I am much more comfortable they will find impact players at D then I am they will at C. 

 

 

You just stopped me from posting a tumbleweeds gif.

 

I am also interested to see how some of our younger D do, and, also, I don't have the bar set super high but still interested.

 

I am quite confident that the status of our D is going to be more consequential than any amount of conversations we've had about Eichel this offseason, so it is notable that we went pretty much the whole summer without any talk on here.

 

If I'm wrong, and the Flames really come through, it'll be because I underestimate our younger D.  Well, Markstrom would need a good year too (or Vladar).

 

If the Flames do what I think they're going to do, and we are a serious Shane Wright contender, again, it's going to come back to this thread.

Share this post


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

 

You just stopped me from posting a tumbleweeds gif.

 

I am also interested to see how some of our younger D do, and, also, I don't have the bar set super high but still interested.

 

I am quite confident that the status of our D is going to be more consequential than any amount of conversations we've had about Eichel this offseason, so it is notable that we went pretty much the whole summer without any talk on here.

 

If I'm wrong, and the Flames really come through, it'll be because I underestimate our younger D.  Well, Markstrom would need a good year too (or Vladar).

 

If the Flames do what I think they're going to do, and we are a serious Shane Wright contender, again, it's going to come back to this thread.


i don’t think we are a Wright contender. We will always be either just in or just out. Then we will wonder why they didn’t compete if they made the playoffs, or why we didn’t just lose out the season when we win to catapult ourselves up to drafting 14th overall from something like 7th-10th.

 

then a few years down the road we will say, look, we were only 3 - 5 points out of the playoffs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, robrob74 said:


i don’t think we are a Wright contender. We will always be either just in or just out. Then we will wonder why they didn’t compete if they made the playoffs, or why we didn’t just lose out the season when we win to catapult ourselves up to drafting 14th overall from something like 7th-10th.

 

then a few years down the road we will say, look, we were only 3 - 5 points out of the playoffs. 

 

It is entirely possible, but I hope you're wrong lol.    That out come is particularly depressing to me personally.

 

One thing we can expect is the unexpected.

 

Was just admiring this 2012 thread, right before we went into our last rebuild:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, robrob74 said:


i don’t think we are a Wright contender. We will always be either just in or just out. Then we will wonder why they didn’t compete if they made the playoffs, or why we didn’t just lose out the season when we win to catapult ourselves up to drafting 14th overall from something like 7th-10th.

 

then a few years down the road we will say, look, we were only 3 - 5 points out of the playoffs. 

 

Ya I agree.  Too bad we are in the weakest division in the NHL.  With some luck, we could finish 2nd in the Pacific Division and no one would be shocked.  Even with bad luck, no way we finish worse than SJS and ANA.  Best we pick is 12th again unless we win the lotto. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes young lesser developed players time to grow into solid minds and bodies. Some guys develop faster. That's ok. Sometimes young guys find a way to get the job done. Having an Eichel would be a plus no doubt. 

The point I like the best is that Sutter will try to tighten up the neutral zone. That will improve any team defence.

Like conundrumed said in not so many words, defence is the whole team. 

I think small market teams need to build differently than large market ones. A large physical gritty defensive team can still win a cup in today's game; there are already too many finesse teams in an already too large league (IMHO). Montreal lost the cup last season because of a handful of poor defensive plays (IMHO). (Whatever happened to taking 'good penalties'?... but that is a side discussion). 

I want to see the tiny and floating players traded for bigger hungrier ones. 

Sutter knows what needs to be done to win; Treliving, I'm not so sure. 

Another thing I like about conundrumed is his optimism. You don't get far when negativity sets in; you don't win shifts... you don't win games. We have all been there; we all know that. 

 

It's good to hear from you all again. I miss Flyersfan too. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome back Stone.   An obvious signing as I felt he did well under Sutter and Sutter liked to use him.

 

And welcome Gudbranson I guess.  The guy who cheapshotted Dillon Dube in his first NHL game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

Welcome back Stone.   An obvious signing as I felt he did well under Sutter and Sutter liked to use him.

 

And welcome Gudbranson I guess.  The guy who cheapshotted Dillon Dube in his first NHL game.  

 

Stone makes a lot of sense. Like you said, he played well under Sutter.

 

Gudbranson I am less thrilled about. It's a case of getting an average player because he is a known quantity versus playing a younger player who is an unknown quantity. 

 

That said, the deal is fine and he adds physicality that we need. 

 

Between all of the depth lately, particularly and goal and D, is it possible the Flames are gearing up for an Eichel move with Wolf and Valamki part of the package? Conspiracy theory for sure, but goal and D are getting awfully crowded. 

 

That said, Treliving stockpiles D every season and both additions follow the "build a Sutter team" theme so I think there is a simpler explanation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Stone makes a lot of sense. Like you said, he played well under Sutter.

 

Gudbranson I am less thrilled about. It's a case of getting an average player because he is a known quantity versus playing a younger player who is an unknown quantity. 

 

That said, the deal is fine and he adds physicality that we need. 

 

Between all of the depth lately, particularly and goal and D, is it possible the Flames are gearing up for an Eichel move with Wolf and Valamki part of the package? Conspiracy theory for sure, but goal and D are getting awfully crowded. 

 

That said, Treliving stockpiles D every season and both additions follow the "build a Sutter team" theme so I think there is a simpler explanation. 

 

Kek, exactly what I was thinking.  Except BUF wants RD because they have Dahlin, Power, Hagg, and Samuelsson, they lack a top pair RHS RD.  Besides, we need to clear the cap space.  Valimaki doesn't clear enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Kek, exactly what I was thinking.  Except BUF wants RD because they have Dahlin, Power, Hagg, and Samuelsson, they lack a top pair RHS RD.  Besides, we need to clear the cap space.  Valimaki doesn't clear enough.

 

Your not wrong. I doubt Calgary wants to move Andersson though given the lack of top 4 options. But if it's for Eichel I am sure they would consider it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we had just about any other coach, bringing Stone and Gudbransson in would make very little sense. That being said these are the types of defensemen Sutter has success with. I think Stone is more here to be the 7th D. I don't really mind either signing because they fit the coaches style. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I for one like the the new Dman.  We have now just gotten harder to play against. Offense is limited on the back end but with Gubranson and Zadorov we just increased the physical presenance of this club.  This also smells like Tre has something brewing as well, If its Eichel it has be a lot of roster players to make work. I could see a Hanifin or Anderson moved on D, and Lindlholm/ Monahan moved up front. 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Stone makes a lot of sense. Like you said, he played well under Sutter.

 

Gudbranson I am less thrilled about. It's a case of getting an average player because he is a known quantity versus playing a younger player who is an unknown quantity. 

 

That said, the deal is fine and he adds physicality that we need. 

 

Between all of the depth lately, particularly and goal and D, is it possible the Flames are gearing up for an Eichel move with Wolf and Valamki part of the package? Conspiracy theory for sure, but goal and D are getting awfully crowded. 

 

That said, Treliving stockpiles D every season and both additions follow the "build a Sutter team" theme so I think there is a simpler explanation. 

Aww comon do you really want to part with these kids to grab a beat-up kid who in reality has not put up that many more points than Mony sure he is a R S but why would you want to drop Wolf a possible game breaker and a D who is just a baby and hasn't had the opportunity to play a full yr yet? I love trades but when it comes to the track record of the Flames management in the last 10 yrs or so we really should close the door . Eic is not the answer and given up such possible prospects that is not the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stone is fine, depth and fine if he winds up in the press box. 
 

Zero shock, but not happy about Gudbranson. I get Sutter wanted him and better hope and pray Sutter has some magic because Gudbranson is not very good. He and Zadarov on the same D core is looking very rough going into the season.  
 

Gudbranson said today Sutter called him at the start of free agency saying he hoped he would consider Calgary. For me if they are just signing him now that would signal to me that they were awaiting a bigger move and are now out. That would line up with Friedman reporting yesterday that Buffalo re engaged with interested teams after meeting with Eichel a new reps 

Share this post


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

Aww comon do you really want to part with these kids to grab a beat-up kid who in reality has not put up that many more points than Mony sure he is a R S but why would you want to drop Wolf a possible game breaker and a D who is just a baby and hasn't had the opportunity to play a full yr yet? I love trades but when it comes to the track record of the Flames management in the last 10 yrs or so we really should close the door . Eic is not the answer and given up such possible prospects that is not the way to go.

 

McDavid, McKinnon, Crosby, then maybe Draisaitl and Matthews are the best Cs in the league. Right below that you have a short group that includes Bergeron, Barkov, Schiefle, and a few others. Eichel is in that group when he is healthy, and he is 24 years old. Monahan is a strap drop below those guys. That's not a slight, I like Monahan. But he isn't Eichel. 

 

If the Flames are confident in Eichel recovering, then yes I would give those players up for Eichel. If the Flames won the lottery and got the first overall pick we would be super fortunate to draft a player of that Caliber. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cross16 said:

Stone is fine, depth and fine if he winds up in the press box. 
 

Zero shock, but not happy about Gudbranson. I get Sutter wanted him and better hope and pray Sutter has some magic because Gudbranson is not very good. He and Zadarov on the same D core is looking very rough going into the season.  
 

Gudbranson said today Sutter called him at the start of free agency saying he hoped he would consider Calgary. For me if they are just signing him now that would signal to me that they were awaiting a bigger move and are now out. That would line up with Friedman reporting yesterday that Buffalo re engaged with interested teams after meeting with Eichel a new reps 

 

Gudbranson is a defensive D that struggles in his own end at times, and that's a tough package to sell. But he makes the Flames tougher to play against and, along with Zadarov, adds an element we didn't have. 

 

I think he is going to fit nicely into a role this season. I won't be shocked if we are regretting the signing in December, but I actually expect we will be pleasantly surprised with him. I guess we will see. 

 

As for the timing of the signing suggesting the Flames are out on Eichel, maybe. It could be a spend of the final cap space, and a sign they are done. But it could also be a sign they may be trading a D and wanted the depth. Most likely the two are unrelated and this is just adding some last off season depth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not surprised by Stone. We all knew that was coming. Stone is like BT's son or something. Favours.

 

Gudbranson. Gross. I don't know if I can get on board with this one at all. Just what are we doing here? He's going to get skated around a lot. Yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, cross16 said:

Gudbranson said today Sutter called him at the start of free agency saying he hoped he would consider Calgary. For me if they are just signing him now that would signal to me that they were awaiting a bigger move and are now out. That would line up with Friedman reporting yesterday that Buffalo re engaged with interested teams after meeting with Eichel a new reps 

 

Does that not mean the Sabres re-engaged with the Flames since the Flames were an interested team?  

 

Of all the Flames roster players, the one that should interest them the most is Rasmus Andersson.  The Sabres don't have a top pair RHS RD in the pipeline.  Dahlin and Hagg are both Swedish.  Andersson would be a fantastic fit there.  Signed for 5-years and still 24-years-old.  So thus, the Flames locked up 2 RHS RD in preparation for the move.

 

Also, Hanifin and Eichel now have the same agent and they are good friends from back in the day.  Maybe Eichel would like to join Hanifin in Calgary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we now have 9 D and only Kylington on a 2 way contract?

 

I expected Stone and happy to have him back as cover for injuries but

 

Hanafin Anderson

Tanev Mackey

Zadorov Gudbranson

Stone

Valimaki, Kylingtom

 

The balance looks all wrong to me. 

Valimaki looks the odd one out here with Kylington being waived and sent to Stocketon again.   But perhpas they run with 2 D in the press box and Mackey sits with Valimiki partnering Tanev.

Can see why the consipracy theroies are starting......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I am not surprised by Stone. We all knew that was coming. Stone is like BT's son or something. Favours.

 

Gudbranson. Gross. I don't know if I can get on board with this one at all. Just what are we doing here? He's going to get skated around a lot. Yikes.

You need players too that can knock opponents on their Hash Rate instead of 'sticking it' in front of the net. Hab's cup loss... 

You can't please us all but we aren't building the team. 

You gotta have players that can take care of business in the finals... like John Gaudreau, not. I'm going to switch forums to talk about the forwards for awhile. Calgary's defence looks not bad. 

Share this post


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

So we now have 9 D and only Kylington on a 2 way contract?

 

I expected Stone and happy to have him back as cover for injuries but

 

Hanafin Anderson

Tanev Mackey

Zadorov Gudbranson

Stone

Valimaki, Kylingtom

 

The balance looks all wrong to me. 

Valimaki looks the odd one out here with Kylington being waived and sent to Stocketon again.   But perhpas they run with 2 D in the press box and Mackey sits with Valimiki partnering Tanev.

Can see why the consipracy theroies are starting......

 

It doesn't look that bad Imo. Maybe it's how you have them paired? 

 

1. Hanafin-Tanev 

2. Zadarov-Andersson 

3. Valamaki-Gubrandson 

E. Mackey-Stone 

A. Kylington-Welinksy 

 

Kylington and Welinksy are going to provide depth from the AHL.

 

Mackey can also easily be sent down, his salary is small enough to fully bury and he is waiver exempt. Stone's salary also can be buried, he isn't waiver except though. I expect Mackey will be sent down and be the first call up if there are injuries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Does that not mean the Sabres re-engaged with the Flames since the Flames were an interested team?  

 

Of all the Flames roster players, the one that should interest them the most is Rasmus Andersson.  The Sabres don't have a top pair RHS RD in the pipeline.  Dahlin and Hagg are both Swedish.  Andersson would be a fantastic fit there.  Signed for 5-years and still 24-years-old.  So thus, the Flames locked up 2 RHS RD in preparation for the move.

 

Also, Hanifin and Eichel now have the same agent and they are good friends from back in the day.  Maybe Eichel would like to join Hanifin in Calgary.


Signing 2 older ,and not very good dmen, to one year deals in order to trade your 24 year old dman doesn’t strike me as preparation. 

Share this post


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

You need players too that can knock opponents on their Hash Rate instead of 'sticking it' in front of the net. Hab's cup loss... 

You can't please us all but we aren't building the team. 

You gotta have players that can take care of business in the finals... like John Gaudreau, not. I'm going to switch forums to talk about the forwards for awhile. Calgary's defence looks not bad. 


I am ok with the D for the most part. I am not ok with EG. it’s like the Ronaldo’s. When they’re not doing what you’re suggesting, they are hurting the team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

It doesn't look that bad Imo. Maybe it's how you have them paired? 

 

1. Hanafin-Tanev 

2. Zadarov-Andersson 

3. Valamaki-Gubrandson 

E. Mackey-Stone 

A. Kylington-Welinksy 

 

Kylington and Welinksy are going to provide depth from the AHL.

 

Mackey can also easily be sent down, his salary is small enough to fully bury and he is waiver exempt. Stone's salary also can be buried, he isn't waiver except though. I expect Mackey will be sent down and be the first call up if there are injuries. 


sutter is going to wonder why Valamaki isn’t good enough because he’s going to be covering for EG all the time and failing to do what what he’s good at, thus stifling his offensive side. Sure Valamaki needs to play good D, but…

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...