Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Hockey_Canada1

Discussion & Debate Thread: Flames and Canucks

Recommended Posts


I'll take Iggy and joker before i'll take the twins only because if one twin gets injured the other one aint that good anymore as where iggy and joker will still be good cause they don't need one another to perform , the twins do.

also the twins are babbies they can't fight and iggy can.

Says who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='cinlow wrote:


The_Don wrote:

But it's about Iginla alone having more of an impact than both Sedins, not Iginla + random linemate. Because then we would say Sedins + 3rd linemate and then Iginla + 2nd line and so on and so on until we are comparing the whole teams.

I understand what you are saying Don but with the reality of the Salary Cap it makes sense to at least look at the comparison about 2 players versus 2 players instead of 2 players versus 1 player. It doesn't need to be taken past that point but it is a valid argument to make that with their new contracts the Sedins are a much larger salary cap hit. If that trade were to go down right now, the Flames would have to clear $5.2M in cap space, which just happens to be the exact amount that Jokinen is earning.

So while I do think that Iginla can be a bigger impact player by himself than the twins combined, it would require him to go back to his form of 2 seasons ago and hopefully forget about last season where he turned into more of a support character. As it is, I will be very interested to see how the Sedins vs. Iginla + Jokinen thread pans out (when it finally gets made) dance.gifI was responding to your original statement that Iginla alone is often more effective that both Sedins. Which is hogwash. So you can't change your argument to Iginla AND Jokinen, because that is not what you originally said.

cinlow']

I wouldn't... Often Iginla has more impact than both of the Sedin'scombined. Like in the Sedins vs. Tanguay+Iginla thread from a coupleyears ago, Iginla was carrying the entire bet by himself.

The only reason to go through with that trade is to get younger but Ireally don't think that is an issue we need to worry about with Iginlafor 5 more years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='hutterite wrote:


The_Don wrote:

hutterite']

I'll take Iggy and joker before i'll take the twins only because if one twin gets injured the other one aint that good anymore as where iggy and joker will still be good cause they don't need one another to perform , the twins do.

also the twins are babbies they can't fight and iggy can.

Says who?

Everybody knows that the twins need each other you can't trade for just one , they come in a packaged. Did you see when one of them got hurt the other one wasn't as effective as before. On a side not if this game had no injuries I would take them over Iggy only because they are younger but i would lose a great team leader which they arent.

  Does everyone know that? How do you know that, considered they very rarely get hurt. The last time either one missed a game was 06/07 when Daniel missed ONE game. That was Novemeber 25, 2006. Henrik had an assist in that game.

You can speculate all you want, but there is no way to no for sure how effective they will be apart for an extended period of time, because they have never had to be. They wouldn't simply forget how to skate, pass and shoot because their brother isn't on the ice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People always say the Sedins have an uncanny ability to find each other on the ice. While true, people are selling them short by limiting it to each other. They simply have an uncanny ability to find their linemates on the ice. It just so happens that more often than not their brother is the one who is in a position to recieve a pass. But they do the same thing with their other winger and the defencemen, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Demonous_Xodus wrote:


The_Don']But again, 100%

Sutter became GM during the 04 Season, thus begininng our streak of 5 consecutive playoff appearances. Sutter is also 100% at making the playoffs.

You sir, got pwnt.dude, it's a tie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='littlereddevil wrote:


The_Don wrote:

Demonous_Xodus wrote:

The_Don']But again, 100%

Sutter became GM during the 04 Season, thus begininng our streak of 5 consecutive playoff appearances. Sutter is also 100% at making the playoffs.

You sir, got pwnt.
dude, it's a tie.

well isn't 5 for 5 better than 1 for 1?

  100% is 100%

How about consecutive years past the first round?

In the immortal words of Jack Black....

"I WIN! ONE TO NOTHIN'!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='littlereddevil wrote:


The_Don wrote:

littlereddevil wrote:

The_Don wrote:

Demonous_Xodus wrote:

The_Don']But again, 100%

Sutter became GM during the 04 Season, thus begininng our streak of 5 consecutive playoff appearances. Sutter is also 100% at making the playoffs.

You sir, got pwnt.
dude, it's a tie.

well isn't 5 for 5 better than 1 for 1?

  
100% is 100%

How about consecutive years past the first round?

In the immortal words of Jack Black....

"I WIN! ONE TO NOTHIN'!"

That's like saying:

"oh we did well, we got 1st place, but there only was one team!" roll.gif

  wow....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our D is better, JBO and Phaneuf with the shot, kipper and luongo both earn their pay, and Calgary will beat the canucks this year in the regular season and post season wins..
wantsa bet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='hkiitay wrote:


Hockey_Canada1']

I honestly don't see much of a comparison. Hodgson is a far more complete player, is a natural leader, extremely mature beyond his years, extremely cerebral and has dominated any level he has played at.

Not that I am taking anything away from Backlund. He should be a bright part of Calagry's future for years to come. But they are simply different players. It's like comparing Martin Havlat to Mike Richards.

Richards is better than Hackin' Havlat.  tongue.gif

anyway, Backlund VS Hodgson was one of the comparisons DL wanted us to discuss.  My comparison came down to who was more nhl ready, and as much as it bothered me, I had to say Hodgson.

To put the Backlund-Hodgson comparison into better--though extremely inflated--light would be to compare Iginla (in Hodgson's place) to... uh... Patrick Kane (in Backlund's place)

I say this^ because I would never subject two fine young men like Backlund and Hodgson to a comparison with Havlat (hate him)

  

of course Richards is better. He was the Hodgson in my comparison. I don't know about comparing Hodgons to Iginla, since he isn't a goal scoring power forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking over some of the older posts, and something occured to me.

There was a lot of talk that the 'Nucks had more 40 point worthy defencemen than the Flames...

Well, the Flames have more 60 point worthy defenders than the Canucks

Flames: Phaneuf

Canucks: No one (Schneider has come close a few times in the past--with the Red-Wings.  Makes you wonder how many points Phaneuf would get on that team?)

How many 70 assist forwards?

Canucks: Henrik

Flames: no one

How many 25 goal, 150 PIM guys?

Canucks: Burrows

Flames: No one

What does this mean? A whole lot of nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='cinlow wrote:


Dusty_Foot_Philosopher']Burrows is such an enigma that it's hard to make comparisons. I really have no idea what to expect next year.

I do like Bourque, but expecting him to not only meet, but surpass last year's pace seems a bit much to me. Maybe if he can stay healthy, and stay on the top line.

Bourque was one the second line for the majority of last season so I don't see why he would need to be on the top line to repeat last year's production. Mainly we just need to see him stay healthy and I can see him having a huge year under B.Sutter. Bourque strikes me as a prototype Sutter player for a defensively responsible, puck position & fast transition style game.

I also would expect Glencross, Moss and Boyd to all do better under Sutter & Co. than they did under Keenan.

I am not sure what you guys are expecting out of Sutter's "system", but so far I have read that it will improve the defensive game, offensive game and transition game. Now maybe I am being skeptikal, but if there was such a system that excelled in all facets of the game, would it not be used by every team in the league by now? I mean, you have to sacrifice one of those areas in order to excel in another, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='hkiitay wrote:


The_Don wrote:


hkiitay']

I was looking over some of the older posts, and something occured to me.

There was a lot of talk that the 'Nucks had more 40 point worthy defencemen than the Flames...

Well, the Flames have more 60 point worthy defenders than the Canucks

Flames: Phaneuf

Canucks: No one (Schneider has come close a few times in the past--with the Red-Wings.  Makes you wonder how many points Phaneuf would get on that team?)

How many 70 assist forwards?

Canucks: Henrik

Flames: no one

How many 25 goal, 150 PIM guys?

Canucks: Burrows

Flames: No one

What does this mean? A whole lot of nothing.

of course it means nothing!! that was the point!!!

oh, and just to be irritating:

30 goal scorers:

Canucks: Daniel Sedin, perhaps Alexandre Burrows, MAYBE Pavel Demitra. Maybe.

Flames: Jarome Iginla, Olli Jokinen, perhaps Daymond Langkow, perhaps Rene Bourque, MAYBE David Moss. MAYBE. Maybe.

Kesler, Samuelsson (maybe, ect..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='cross16 wrote:


DL44 wrote:


cross16']

 

And also dont get me wrong, I actually like AV as a coach and can admit he is a good coach. I think his coaching style is great, and if he had a more open system I think the Canucks would be far more dangerous and he woudl be touted as one of the top 5 coaches in the league.

he's never had the horses to play an open style... you need offensive personnel to play an open system, and we haven't been that lucky.  gets back to the whole ' your players dictate the system implemented'. Remember up until last yr Burrows hadn't shown he was anything but a 3rd liner... Kesler was  a HOPE to play on the 2nd line.

We went into last season like this:

Sedin-Sedin-Demitra

Raymond-Wellwood-Bernier

Burrows-Kesler-Hansen

Hordichuk-Johnson-Rypien

Tough to open it up with such an offensively unproven lineup outside the top line.  3rd line was considered an elite level checking line.... not for scoring.  The lineup screamed play defensive.

This yr, the lineup is deeper and a little more established than last yr... we'll see how AV plays it.
Not really.  New Jersey wasn't that much better of an offensive lineup than the Canucks and they opened it up. I also would't call the New York Rangers better than the Canucks on paper and they opened up their system.

I also heard the same thing from Canucks last year, that AV was going to open up his system. Yet it wasn't until later in the season, and fairly reluctantly, that he silghtly opened it up. About 90% of the time, coaches do not change from their philosphies. And sitting on leads, regardless of his personel, has always been his way of doing things. I would be shocked if that changed. I expect the same as last year. It be a little more agressive until they get a lead and then slowly get more and more passive and defensive as the game goes on.

  

Would you not admit then, that 11th was pretty damn good for a team in scoring that only "slightly" opened it up near the end of the season? Especially when the Rangers finished 28th?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top line LW position really should not matter very much for the Flames. When you have a line that already has Iginla and Jokinen, filling in that third spot on the line can happen using Boyd, Backlund, Dawes, Glencross or Bourque and I really do not think any of those are bad choices. Whoever gets that spot is going to get a lot of open ice and chances to score goals while other teams are dealing with Iginla and Jokinen. I really do not believe we need an expensive LWer to make that line work.

I would agree that the Flames don't need a top flight LW and could easily get by with one of the guys you mentioned. However, the problem could arise on your 2nd line, when you are again filling in spots with borderline top 6 forwards or 3rd line forwards. Having one of your fringe players in your top 6 is no problem, teams do it all the time with success. Detroit with Cleary for example. But having 2 of those guys in your top 6 can pose a problem.

The flames right now have 4 legit top 6 forwards; Iginla, Jokinen, Bourque and Langkow. After that you have a bunch of guys that either have the potnetial to be there (Boyd, Dawes, Backlund) or guys that are just on the fringe (Glencross, Conroy, Moss). The Canucks have been in a similar situation for pretty much the last 3 years. It was Sedin, Sedin, Naslund and Morrison. Then last season it was Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Demitra (before Sundin). This season it seems that Burrows has stepped up into that role, and I believe we now have 5 of these guys, with just as many knocking on the door, like the Flames. I think having that 5th guy can be crucial, so that you don't have both of your top lines with guys on it that just don't quite belong.

And I'll say this again, just so you don't think I am bashing here. There are always guys that step up and surprise (ala Bourque, Burrows) and take hold of a top 6 role for good. And there are some guys that could conceivably do that on the Flames roster. But it remains to be seen who that will be, if it happens at all. It could be the difference between being out in the first round again, or making a long run in the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Wolven wrote:


The_Don']I would agree that the Flames don't need a top flight LW and could easily get by with one of the guys you mentioned. However, the problem could arise on your 2nd line, when you are again filling in spots with borderline top 6 forwards or 3rd line forwards. Having one of your fringe players in your top 6 is no problem, teams do it all the time with success. Detroit with Cleary for example. But having 2 of those guys in your top 6 can pose a problem.

The flames right now have 4 legit top 6 forwards; Iginla, Jokinen, Bourque and Langkow. After that you have a bunch of guys that either have the potnetial to be there (Boyd, Dawes, Backlund) or guys that are just on the fringe (Glencross, Conroy, Moss). The Canucks have been in a similar situation for pretty much the last 3 years. It was Sedin, Sedin, Naslund and Morrison. Then last season it was Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Demitra (before Sundin). This season it seems that Burrows has stepped up into that role, and I believe we now have 5 of these guys, with just as many knocking on the door, like the Flames. I think having that 5th guy can be crucial, so that you don't have both of your top lines with guys on it that just don't quite belong.

And I'll say this again, just so you don't think I am bashing here. There are always guys that step up and surprise (ala Bourque, Burrows) and take hold of a top 6 role for good. And there are some guys that could conceivably do that on the Flames roster. But it remains to be seen who that will be, if it happens at all. It could be the difference between being out in the first round again, or making a long run in the playoffs.

I agree with the concept of what you are saying. Only having 4 bonafide top 6 players with one of them (Bourque) being suspect in some people's eyes can be cause for concern. For the most part the Flames have been one of those teams that have not really allowed growth from within, particularly in our top 6 forwards. We have always gone out and looked for that Nolan, Cammalleri or Bertuzzi to add to the mix.

Last year the Flames worked pretty effectively with a top 9 that pretty much looked like this:

Cammalleri-Lombardi/Conroy-Iginla

Bourque-Langkow-Bertuzzi

Glencross-Lombardi/Conroy-Moss

Taking that line up to this year:

XXXX-Jokinen-Iginla

Bourque-Langkow-XXXX

Glencross-Conroy-Moss

Plugging a Boyd, Backlund, Glencross or Dawes into that top line spot should allow the line to still be effective. At least as effective as last year when we were rolling with Lombo/Conroy on the line. I really think having a strong centerman like Jokinen will make that line superior to when we had a questionable center but a big scoring winger like Cammi.

The second line loses Bertuzzi which I think is a big chunk of creativity but also a big chunk of turnovers and defensive liability. Moss should be an effective replacement and I think that line should still be productive and from the sounds of Sjostrom he should be an easy replacement for Moss.

What is exciting from my point of view, especially during the offseason, is that we are going to be giving guys like Moss, Glencross, Boyd or Backlund a shot at bigger roles and there are enough of them competing for those spots that I feel they will really go all out to try to be the guy who wins top minutes. It will certainly suck if these guys all fall flat on their faces but realistically one or two of them should be able to really step up.

The main thing that makes it all work though is our strength on D. Having Bouwmeester, Phaneuf, Regehr and Sarich on the blue line will really allow for more options and room for winger mistakes than when Aucoin and Vandermeer were there.

Expecting Moss to replace Bertuzzi's offensive production and expecting Sjostrom to replace Moss's offensive production is a little bit out there if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='littlereddevil wrote:


The_Don wrote:


Wolven wrote:


The_Don']

I would agree that the Flames don't need a top flight LW and could easily get by with one of the guys you mentioned. However, the problem could arise on your 2nd line, when you are again filling in spots with borderline top 6 forwards or 3rd line forwards. Having one of your fringe players in your top 6 is no problem, teams do it all the time with success. Detroit with Cleary for example. But having 2 of those guys in your top 6 can pose a problem.

The flames right now have 4 legit top 6 forwards; Iginla, Jokinen, Bourque and Langkow. After that you have a bunch of guys that either have the potnetial to be there (Boyd, Dawes, Backlund) or guys that are just on the fringe (Glencross, Conroy, Moss). The Canucks have been in a similar situation for pretty much the last 3 years. It was Sedin, Sedin, Naslund and Morrison. Then last season it was Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Demitra (before Sundin). This season it seems that Burrows has stepped up into that role, and I believe we now have 5 of these guys, with just as many knocking on the door, like the Flames. I think having that 5th guy can be crucial, so that you don't have both of your top lines with guys on it that just don't quite belong.

And I'll say this again, just so you don't think I am bashing here. There are always guys that step up and surprise (ala Bourque, Burrows) and take hold of a top 6 role for good. And there are some guys that could conceivably do that on the Flames roster. But it remains to be seen who that will be, if it happens at all. It could be the difference between being out in the first round again, or making a long run in the playoffs.

I agree with the concept of what you are saying. Only having 4 bonafide top 6 players with one of them (Bourque) being suspect in some people's eyes can be cause for concern. For the most part the Flames have been one of those teams that have not really allowed growth from within, particularly in our top 6 forwards. We have always gone out and looked for that Nolan, Cammalleri or Bertuzzi to add to the mix.

Last year the Flames worked pretty effectively with a top 9 that pretty much looked like this:

Cammalleri-Lombardi/Conroy-Iginla

Bourque-Langkow-Bertuzzi

Glencross-Lombardi/Conroy-Moss

Taking that line up to this year:

XXXX-Jokinen-Iginla

Bourque-Langkow-XXXX

Glencross-Conroy-Moss

Plugging a Boyd, Backlund, Glencross or Dawes into that top line spot should allow the line to still be effective. At least as effective as last year when we were rolling with Lombo/Conroy on the line. I really think having a strong centerman like Jokinen will make that line superior to when we had a questionable center but a big scoring winger like Cammi.

The second line loses Bertuzzi which I think is a big chunk of creativity but also a big chunk of turnovers and defensive liability. Moss should be an effective replacement and I think that line should still be productive and from the sounds of Sjostrom he should be an easy replacement for Moss.

What is exciting from my point of view, especially during the offseason, is that we are going to be giving guys like Moss, Glencross, Boyd or Backlund a shot at bigger roles and there are enough of them competing for those spots that I feel they will really go all out to try to be the guy who wins top minutes. It will certainly suck if these guys all fall flat on their faces but realistically one or two of them should be able to really step up.

The main thing that makes it all work though is our strength on D. Having Bouwmeester, Phaneuf, Regehr and Sarich on the blue line will really allow for more options and room for winger mistakes than when Aucoin and Vandermeer were there.

Expecting Moss to replace Bertuzzi's offensive production and expecting Sjostrom to replace Moss's offensive production is a little bit out there if you ask me.
Are you aware that we will have Jokinen for a whole season? He'll get probably around 35 goals, which is pretty much replacing Cammalleri's totals.

Bouwmeester replaces Aucoin.

Dawes, Sjostrom and mabye Theo Fleury will replace Bertuzzi.

Goals won't be an issue for Calgary this season. They never have been.

  

I didn't say anything about Jokinen or Aucoin, but rather the specific players I mentioned. Not sure what you're getting at...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zirakzigil wrote:


DL44']

The Flames total O shouldn't drop too much... but the realistic expectation is some sort of drop.

Which should be canceled out by a drop in GA. No difference in winning a game 4-3 then winning it 3-2.

Which leads to another uncertainty. Is Kipper really on the decline or is he simply a product of the talent and/or system in front of him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='littlereddevil wrote:


DL44']

If you consider Jokinen a replacement for Cammalleri... then you've gotta consider a replacement
Lombardi
(46pts in 59gms - better pts than Bourque).

So then your talking about Dawes and Sjostrom replacing Bertuzzi and Lombardi.

oh, and maybe Fleury... unlikely but ok...

also if you got 3 bodies to hopefully make up the production of 2...  body for body, there's a missing piece of the offensive pie. An overall decrease of forward depth...  I thought this had been established already?

There's an overall downgrade at forward.

Overall the defense is expected to contribute more than they did last yr... Bouwmeester is an attractive offensively capable Dman that should take significant defensive responsibility off of Phaneuf.  If Phaneuf can be used in all the primary offensive situations, and leave the prime defensive responsibility to JBo, Regher and Sarich, he should have his best offensive season yet.  It should make up some of the difference of the lost points upfront.

The Flames total O shouldn't drop too much... but the realistic expectation is some sort of drop.

I know I just realised I forgot mentioning Lombardi's name, but his best production (PPG wise) came with the Coyotes.

Mabye I'm just a bit over realistic with Fleury, but who isn't excited about his return to the NHL?

Flames will still have no issues scoring this season.

  

Can you at least admit that there is a chance that it could be a potential problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hodgson sent to Brampton this morning.

Lukowich, Nycholat and Funk on waivers.

Roster now looks like this:

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows

Shirokov - Kesler - Samuelsson

Raymond - Wellwood - Bernier

Hordichuk - Johnson - Rypien/Glass

Mitchell - Salo

Edler - Ehrhoff

Bieksa - O'Brien

Rome

Luongo

Raycroft

Injured: Demitra, Schneider, Hansen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Wolven wrote:


The_Don']Hodgson sent to Brampton this morning.

Lukowich, Nycholat and Funk on waivers.

Roster now looks like this:

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows

Shirokov - Kesler - Samuelsson

Raymond - Wellwood - Bernier

Hordichuk - Johnson - Rypien/Glass

Mitchell - Salo

Edler - Ehrhoff

Bieksa - O'Brien

Rome

Luongo

Raycroft

Injured: Demitra, Schneider, Hansen

Interesting. I know how high you guys are on that kid. Is the expectation that Hodgson is staying down to develop this year or just until he can get called up and secure a spot? I know with Backlund my expectation is that he is staying on the Heat for the year.

Lukowich looks like an expensive contract to bury in the minors ($1.6M). Did he get outplayed by Rome or is that a salary cap burying?

He can't be called up.

And it is both for Lukowich. Rome was very impressive in the pre-season and is a much lower hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...