Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Sirwilliam89

What Is Best For Matthew Tkachuk

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

I would rather that they call the plays the same in October as they do in April/May.  Wishful thinking I guess.

 

You think that is wishful?...   I want to see consistent calls for all players on every team, every game...   But I'm pretty sure we'll see this first...

                                                                                                                                                                                  Image result for pig flying animated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 2 problems when it comes to debating development. 1 - there are so many uncontrolled variables that you cannot account for, so to draw a conclusion about development without addressing them means you are draw a false conclusion. 2 - Most of the development debate If ind ends up being built on a fallacy and that fallacy is that any player with the right development will hit a certain peak, or hit the NHL. From both a statistical and common sense perspective, this just isn't accurate but the debate seems to always wind up that if Team X had done this to player Y then everything would have been fine or they would have become a better player. 

 

How do you we know Edmonton "ruined" their prospects? What if Nugent Hopkins was just not the pro prospect he was made out to be? Yakupov has terrible hockey sense, woudl spending more time in Juniors fixed that, not imo? If Monahan had went back to junior how many bad habits does he pick up that the Flames then have to work out of him once he gets here so why would that make him a better player in the long run?

 

Have to take it case by case and player by player. There isn't a linear development model you can follow. So far I think the Flames have done a good job of tailoring their approach to the prospect. Bennett it the only expception for me but part of that is being limited by the rules between AHL-CHL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I have 2 problems when it comes to debating development. 1 - there are so many uncontrolled variables that you cannot account for, so to draw a conclusion about development without addressing them means you are draw a false conclusion. 2 - Most of the development debate If ind ends up being built on a fallacy and that fallacy is that any player with the right development will hit a certain peak, or hit the NHL. From both a statistical and common sense perspective, this just isn't accurate but the debate seems to always wind up that if Team X had done this to player Y then everything would have been fine or they would have become a better player. 

 

How do you we know Edmonton "ruined" their prospects? What if Nugent Hopkins was just not the pro prospect he was made out to be? Yakupov has terrible hockey sense, woudl spending more time in Juniors fixed that, not imo? If Monahan had went back to junior how many bad habits does he pick up that the Flames then have to work out of him once he gets here so why would that make him a better player in the long run?

 

Have to take it case by case and player by player. There isn't a linear development model you can follow. So far I think the Flames have done a good job of tailoring their approach to the prospect. Bennett it the only expception for me but part of that is being limited by the rules between AHL-CHL. 

 

Yak, I think the same, RNH was too small. Sometimes the skill is there but the body has to catch up to the NHL. 

 

Yak, maybe minors would be a good fix? 

 

Bennett might need the AHL. We know he can play in theNHL, but I don't think quite as a C yet. I would develop him as a C in the AHL where we can live with the growing pains of it. If not, play the wing. 

Share this post


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

 

Yak, I think the same, RNH was too small. Sometimes the skill is there but the body has to catch up to the NHL. 

 

Yak, maybe minors would be a good fix? 

 

Bennett might need the AHL. We know he can play in theNHL, but I don't think quite as a C yet. I would develop him as a C in the AHL where we can live with the growing pains of it. If not, play the wing. 

 

So, you are suggesting waiving him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, you are suggesting waiving him?

 

Does Bennett require waivers now?

Then of course not. lol

 

Really, what I am suggesting is what I've been suggesting on these boards for about 2 weeks now is, PLAY BENNETT ON THE WING! 

 

If you can't live with the growing pains of learning C for a young guy, play him on the wing. Plus I think he'd provide more offense off the wing and take a lot off of his shoulders.

Share this post


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

 

Does Bennett require waivers now?

Then of course not. lol

 

Really, what I am suggesting is what I've been suggesting on these boards for about 2 weeks now is, PLAY BENNETT ON THE WING! 

 

If you can't live with the growing pains of learning C for a young guy, play him on the wing. Plus I think he'd provide more offense off the wing and take a lot off of his shoulders.

I was 1 that was happy we got Bennett but if I was BT I'd be listening to offers while value is high.

Not saying shop him but if a decent offer is made I don't consider him untouchable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

I was 1 that was happy we got Bennett but if I was BT I'd be listening to offers while value is high.

Not saying shop him but if a decent offer is made I don't consider him untouchable.

 

 

For me, it is a learning curve. The only thing that had me miffed was that they are playing him at C, but sit him when he is learning the position. He's going to suffer more this season there. When he plays wing, he is a bulldog in heat. He plays with purpose. I personally think his skill set and playing style is more suited to the wing. I hope we don't trade him, because we might regret it in 3 years.

 

Not that he's Seguin, but Boston must be kicking themselves now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

I was 1 that was happy we got Bennett but if I was BT I'd be listening to offers while value is high.

Not saying shop him but if a decent offer is made I don't consider him untouchable.

 

Ya man.  

 

I also don't agree with those who say we will regret trading Bennett.  Firstly, we've seen enough to believe we won't. Secondly, we could trade for someone that the other team will regret trading too and it evens out.

 

For example, Noah Hanifin is a player the Canes will regret trading in the future.  Great. Bennett for Hanifin, done and done.

Share this post


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

I have 2 problems when it comes to debating development. 1 - there are so many uncontrolled variables that you cannot account for, so to draw a conclusion about development without addressing them means you are draw a false conclusion. 2 - Most of the development debate If ind ends up being built on a fallacy and that fallacy is that any player with the right development will hit a certain peak, or hit the NHL.

 

Very valid points.

 

12 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

How do you we know Edmonton "ruined" their prospects? What if ..... 

 

Too far :)

Share this post


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

 

Ya man.  

 

I also don't agree with those who say we will regret trading Bennett.  Firstly, we've seen enough to believe we won't. Secondly, we could trade for someone that the other team will regret trading too and it evens out.

 

For example, Noah Hanifin is a player the Canes will regret trading in the future.  Great. Bennett for Hanifin, done and done.

 

I'd do that.   

Share this post


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

 

Ya man.  

 

I also don't agree with those who say we will regret trading Bennett.  Firstly, we've seen enough to believe we won't. Secondly, we could trade for someone that the other team will regret trading too and it evens out.

 

For example, Noah Hanifin is a player the Canes will regret trading in the future.  Great. Bennett for Hanifin, done and done.

Great example! I'd do that in a heartbeat.

 

My original idea was Bennett + for Ristolainen (the + being our 2017 1st rounder) as I feel Buffalo was torn on which Sam they wanted most so this way they get both. Maybe we add Wideman for cap reasons.

 

Either way we get a stronger D now & in the future (& I like my defense!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Great example! I'd do that in a heartbeat.

 

My original idea was Bennett + for Ristolainen (the + being our 2017 1st rounder) as I feel Buffalo was torn on which Sam they wanted most so this way they get both. Maybe we add Wideman for cap reasons.

 

Either way we get a stronger D now & in the future (& I like my defense!).

If they wanted bennett and a 1st rounder for ristolanen I would take that deal in a heartbeat. Although I feel like that may be a bit of a steal on our part but thats just me. I wonder if we could convince them to do jankowski and a first for ristolainen...

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, AlbertaBoy12 said:

If they wanted bennett and a 1st rounder for ristolanen I would take that deal in a heartbeat. Although I feel like that may be a bit of a steal on our part but thats just me. I wonder if we could convince them to do jankowski and a first for ristolainen...

 

:lol:

Only if you add Jankowski to Bennett & that 1st rounder.

You admit 1 is a steal but want to pay even less. Are you a Mennonite? :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Only if you add Jankowski to Bennett & that 1st rounder.

You admit 1 is a steal but want to pay even less. Are you a Mennonite? :lol:

Just making a joke about the jankowski part haha but you totally caught me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be a good time to ask, who is expecting Keith Tkachuk Jr?

Just in case everyone's expecting a 30-30 type guy.

Matthew is twice the playmaker his father ever was. He has good finish and it brings up the Knights argument of him being a finisher for Dvorak and Marner.

It just isn't true. He tends to double up on assists, so a 25-50 guy is more likely.

It pains me to say it because I despise the Knights, but in <5 years he could be our leader.

The "sophomore slump" thing should be interesting next year with a good handful of 2nd year guys.

Of the lot, I just might rule out Tkachuk the most, maybe behind Matthews. Maybe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curios what Grade you PPl will put on MrT (chucky) I think an A is inline for this kid still playing hard and staying away from silly penalties. In my mind he has learned well how to play on the line between bad penalties and good ones I give him an B+to A for his efforts on that as well.I wonder how the Canucks fan base swallow the picks of 2016 ? By the way MrT is only 8 points away from iggy in his first yr as a Flame Not bad hey.

Share this post


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

only 8 points away from iggy in his first yr as a Flame Not bad hey.

 

I'll go a step further and say that I think that Tkachuk might grow into being the Flames next gen Iggy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I whole heartily Agree wow something we agree on be still my little heart. J/k all in fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/01/2017 at 11:10 AM, Flyerfan52 said:

Great example! I'd do that in a heartbeat.

 

My original idea was Bennett + for Ristolainen (the + being our 2017 1st rounder) as I feel Buffalo was torn on which Sam they wanted most so this way they get both. Maybe we add Wideman for cap reasons.

 

Either way we get a stronger D now & in the future (& I like my defense!).

Although I know Rasmus is a stud, Im not so sure I would sell Benny off for him without a care... Ristolainen>Bennett, I get that, but Calgary has never had a problem finding good defensemen. Centers on the other hand? Totally differnt story, so unless we have a suitable replacement Im not trading Benny anywhere. 

 

Mind you, Im also guilty of saying Sam would finish the season with 60ish pts to his name, so I might be a bit of a homer when it comes to the kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TrippinVdUb said:

Although I know Rasmus is a stud, Im not so sure I would sell Benny off for him without a care... Ristolainen>Bennett, I get that, but Calgary has never had a problem finding good defensemen. Centers on the other hand? Totally differnt story, so unless we have a suitable replacement Im not trading Benny anywhere. 

 

Mind you, Im also guilty of saying Sam would finish the season with 60ish pts to his name, so I might be a bit of a homer when it comes to the kid.

I think a few ideal plans got derailed with the slow start and systems learning as they pertain to Bennett. There was genuine concern with the lack of production happening for JG and SM, while Bennett started seeing a host of different line mates. Plus I think he was trying to push his presence before he was ready in the early going but that is Bennett. I like that the Flames were smart enough to put Tkachuk with two seasoned veterans so at 18 he can learn to play the NHL game properly. As good as he has done Tkachuk has a ways to go yet and I would like to see a line of Tkachuk, Bennett and Lazar next season while we still have Backlund and Frolik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as expected Tkachuk gets 2 games for hitting a "star".  

Typical NHL trying to instill parity by lowering one team's chance at winning.

1st time offender, by the definition of it, and he gets 2 games.  Wideman effect, part trois.

 

I am ok with suspending a guy, if you apply it regardless of the who.

 

https://www.nhl.com/video/tkachuk-suspended-two-games/t-277350912/c-50565803

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎03‎-‎04 at 2:23 PM, Carty said:

 

I'll go a step further and say that I think that Tkachuk might grow into being the Flames next gen Iggy...

The better part will be we have more to go with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...