Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hockey_Canada1

Discussion & Debate Thread: Flames and Canucks

Recommended Posts

Please at least put some effort into as to why you have an opinion othersise your basically trolling. At least guys like Don, Ace, and DL have points not just opinion.

there is no way that the Vancouver prosepct pool is better than the Flames. At worst they are equal but I would suggest the Flames are better becuase they have much better depth. Of course you'll probably respond with the "well who won the prospect game the other day" I would suggest that the Flames absolutly dominated the Canucks in that game but lost the goaltending battle. And the goalie they played isn't even in the Flames system.

Bouwmeester/Gio exceeds Hamhuis- Erhoff IMO. Especially if Bouwmeester plays even 20% better this year. If he plays to his full potential, its easily a better pairing.

Edler/Ballard is equal to Regher/White IMO. Vancouver's pairing can produce more offence, But Regehr is head and shoulder the better shutdown man of that group so IMO that even sit out.

I would say the 4th lines are even as they will bring the same thing. Its hihgly unlikely MOss is on the 4th line so it will be more of an energy style player like Sutter.

The rest I will give you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An objective source, Hockey's Future ranks Vancouver 8th on the organizational depth chart, and Calgary 27th. That site may not be all that accurate, but it's hard to make up 19 spots, let alone say Calgary's pool is better than Vancouver's.

Let's just do a top-10 versus top-10 analysis—yes you could argue that that leaves out notables like Bouma, but for every Bouma Calgary has, Vancouver has a Rai, for every Seabrook, an Oberg, for every Leach, a Polasek. The fact is if you're not top-10 in terms of a team's prospects, there's little chance of saying who is better than who.

1. Mikael Backlund

2. Tim Erixon

3. Mitch Wahl

4. TJ Brodie

5. Greg Nemisz

6. Ryan Howse

7 Matt Pelech

8. Bryan Cameron

9. John Negrin

10. Leland Irving

Versus

1. Cody Hodgson

2. Cory Schneider

3. Jordan Schroeder

4. Anton Rodin

5. Kevin Connauton

6. Chris Tanev

7. Sergei Shirokov

8. Bill Sweatt

9. Peter Andersson

10. Patrick McNally

I'd subjectively rank them as such in terms of NHL impact potential (obviously there's going to be a lot of disagreement, but at least do some basic research on the Vancouver guys):

1. Hodgson

2. Backlund

3. Schneider

4. Schroeder

5. Erixon

6. Wahl

7. Rodin

8. Connauton

9. Brodie

10. Nemisz

11. Howse

12. Tanev

13. Pelech

14. Shirokov

15. Sweatt

16. Cameron

17. Negrin

18. Andersson

19. Irving

20. McNally

I'll let my reputation speak for itself, but if you know anything about hese board its safe to say I am very familiar with prospects both Calgary and Vancovuer so I am not just talking to talk.

IN other threads I have always stated my comparison. Vancovuer has more high end potential in their prospects, but lack the depth that Calgary has especially in blueliners. I think your top 10 analysis, shows Calgary - Vancouver are pretty close. But i'm willing to bet if you kept going and did a 20 vs 20, You'd see Calgary come out on top due to the depth. Thats all i'm saying is that Calgary's prosepct depth is better, and because I see Vancouver as really only having the big 3 in terms of potential I'll take Calgary's depth.

Hockey futures does have them ranked in the top 10, but I don't put alot into hockey futures for the reasons I just talked about. HF favors 2 things, top end potential, and how close are they to the NHL. Because Calgary doens't have the top ends that HF likes, and that most of their good prospects are a few years away (mainly because they are dmen) I tend to believe HF seriously undervalues the Flames. Come one, the Leafs are ranked fairly high by HF, they are not the best resource when it comes to their team rankings. Invidual players rankings I find they are quite good, but I always disagree with their team rankings.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='DL44 wrote:


cross16']

Bouwmeester/Gio exceeds Hamhuis- Erhoff IMO. Especially
IF
Bouwmeester plays even 20% better this year.
IF
he plays to his full potential, its easily a better pairing.

Ehroff is the better established offensive dman than Gio.  Both players are still in the upswing of their development. 

Bouw vs Hamhius is an interesting one indeed... Bouw is bigger, more mobile and more offensive... Hamhuis would be regarded as having superior hockey IQ and defensive ability than Bouw...   
As a pairing, Bouw/Gio excite me a lot more than Ham/Ehrhoff...(still have fond memories of the LA-Cal game where Gio decided to make Dustin Brown his b itch for 60 minutes)... but i think the latter would be more consistent, reliable and effective over 82.

I'm not sure I would agree that Hamhuis is superior in IQ or defensive ability. IMO, they are equal in that department, but given Jbow is by far the better skater and can produce more offensivly I give him the edge. I do think Vancouver fans, maybe not you, will find out quickly that Hamhuis isn't all he's cracked up to be. While I think he is a good dman, I don't think he is great and don't really think his IQ is actually all that high. I would give Erhoff the edge over Gio in most categories though except for physical play.

I think it really depends on wether or not Jbow improves. If the Flames get the Jbow that played last season, I think this pairing is pretty much even with a slight edge to the Canucks. I think if Jbow plays closer to how he did in Florida that the Flames have the better pairing and would be just as consistant as Erhoff/Hamhuis. I do suspect Jbow is going to have a bounce back season as most dman struggle in their first year with a team after getting a big deal. At this point though, I'm not even convinced Jbow will play with Gio so we'll have to see. Gio/Sarich appear to be a pairing the Flames really like.

I would no longer say head and shoulders based on how Regher looked lumbering around the ice last yr.  I'll hold off on that to see how Regher's legs look thru camp here. 

Edler is my pick to establish himself as the true #1 on the Canucks in the near future (this yr or next). at just 24, his huge developmental step in the playoffs this past spring was a sight to behold. When 2010 playoff Edler becomes the baseline Edler... there will be no comparison... can't wait to see how he looks in camp. 
And i mean that for Regher as well... i've always respected him and seen him as your Ohlund minus the offense.. hope those legs have little more spring in them this yr. 

 (comparing 4th lines at this point is more useless than "<" / ">" arguments so i won't even bother) 
Fair enough on Regehr, although I still bleieve his injuries have had alot to do with his slowing. Towards the end of the last season he started to show the shutdown dman he has been so i expect that to continue althought I will admit he is not what he was 2 years ago. I still think he is the best out of that 4 though.

I've been watching for Edler for the last couple seasons now. I actually quite like Edler, but not sure anymore he is going to be a Number 1 guy and might settle into the 2/3 style role. I think he needs to take step forward this season to prove he can be that guy.

Not in regards to you DL, but the point of my last thread was not to try and sway the argument that the Canucks are better. The Canucks are better I will not deny that. However, I also don't beleive its a clear cut race and the Flames are not even in the same league. Its much, much closer than PHilospher was trying to make it seem. That was the original point of my thread.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DL in regards to Jbow, it sounds like you think intelligence is holding him back and i'm not sure I agree with that. do I think his hockey IQ is Lindstrom level, no but lets keep in mind we are talking about probably the smartest dman of all time. I think a big reason for his "struggles"is his desire and physicality. He seems to go out of his way to avoid it and plays with an overal lack of focus at times but I think that relates more to his so laid back and withdrawn personality rather than his IQ.

I also think we should wait until this season to say "struggles"as if its plural. right now we are talking about 1 bad season that came after he signed a big contract. I think there have been many dman like that in the future, Dan boyle included. i don't think his hockey smarts are top notch, but I still think he is a pretty smart dman. I mean he is constantly in the right position and using his stick effectively, the only "struggle"he had last season was offensively not defensively.

I actually do like Hamhuis don't get me wrong. I just think he is being oversold by Vancouver fans (not you specifically). I like Hamhuis as an addition to a top 4 in a 2nd pairing role. Some nights i've watched him play and he struggles to the point where he looks more like a 5/6 so I have an issue with his consistancy. I think your expectations are fairly reasonable, although I think he'll struggle with his consistancy and reliability a little more than you based on what i've seen from him in nashville. |Again, not that I don't like him I just don't think he is in Regehr, Hannan Pronger shutdown style territory. he's in the next level down.

I pointed to the injuries because we've seen Regehr bounce back before and I also believe he did towards the end of last season and he's done it before. I do think its only probably 2 seasons away from a fall back down to earth, but for the next two season I think he'll be fine. and if he plays this season like he did the end of last he'll be fine.

I've seen Edler play that way at times, but its the consistancy I havn't seen. i thought he was easily your best dman in the playoffs but I also never saw him talk over a game like I would expect a number 1 to do. I feel bad underselling the kid because I really like him, I just think he would need to do those 2 things before he would be a true number 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt he'll be that offensivly. Heck I even picked him in one of my hockey pools and thought I got a steal.

I'm more wondering can his overal game develop to the point where he is a number 1 complete dman. Or wil he be jsut a very good offensive dman, who isn't there defensivly.

If he puts two together your certainly looking at a perential NOrris candidtate. I'm just not sure he can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where would i find GA while on the ice for individual players???

Edit: found it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah the numbers say Bourque doesn't deserve to be in the conversation for Selke. i win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought that would have been common knowledge :huh:
Lets wait and see what happens this season before we start pro-rating Bourque against any established talents in the NHL

shhhhhh.... don't tell Ark2 or his buddy.

on a related note, i don't think a winger has ever won a Selke. They're usually 2-way centers are they not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
please if all your going to say is flames >canucks...dont bother posting it, it doesnt help or proove anything and nobody can really bring an rguement against that for credible reasons

besides...we all know this anyways :D

i dont see how anyone thinks vancouver will be betetr next year...

the canucks figured they need a top 6 legit forward...they signed samuelson who only had 40 points to a 2.5 million contract...thanks but glencross does that for 1.2, and not for the red wings who make everyone better.

The logic is that he'll get about 2 more prime top six type minutes/game, with better quality line mates than he played with in Detroit.... and noooo, he didn't play with Datsuyk, Zetterberg... try Filpulla, Cleary etc... but Cleary did get an Olympic invite.

they also said they need a top defenceman/puck moving d-man...not only have they not signed one, they let a very solid d-man walk away...

so...in making a plan...and sticking too it (THUS FAR) they get an F.

it was time for Ohlund to move on, and he's cashed in.. The canucks need someone a lil younger, quicker and with equal or better offensive instincts.

It's day 2 (TWO) of free agency and you're already giving an F. I guess it's fair that i can give the Flames an F on their failure to to replace their top 6 losses. No Cammi, no Bert, and no Boyd... hey... i know it's day 2 but he still hasn't been re-signed. No offensive depth for the Flames what so ever...

Actually the Flames look like the 2007 Canucks... all defense... piss poor O.

calgary feels they needed...a new coaching staff and system....they work some sutter magic to bring in a highly regarded coach with a defensive mind...+1

calgary needs a puck moving d-man...not only do they sign one, they sign the most coveted free agent on the market...and all they gave away was one of new jerseys trades....(uncle lou, thanks for this off season)

for this...they get a A+

... well i suppose, if creating a lack of depth in the forwards and on D was a priority....

now even if they the nucks do sign a free agent d-man whom they need....and even if it is beacheman, the best of the rest....hes STILL not as good of way to fulfill your needs, like calgary did, and you STILL let a very good d-man walk away. i fail to see any nucks upgrades yet.
well.. that's not surprising...

now i know what is going to be said here..."we won the NW and played better" etc etc etc..."you have cap issues"
haven't mentioned that yet...

(if one person says omg you let cammi go, you fail, jokinen IS his replacement, not to mention phaneufs former coach will bring pahenuf back and get more out fo him, bouwmeester adds some offence, and bourque being healthy is good for some more....now your gonna say .."hes injury prone"...well....seeing as no hockey has yet to be played, and this whole thread is based on ON PAPER....everyone is healthy right now)

okay nucks fans...now its your turn to tear me apart :P

Well then i guess therefore a full season of Luongo, Salo, Johnson, Demitra and Rypien as our Depth will help further solidify our division title .... everyone is healthy... our record with Salo and Luongo in the lineup and on the PP was elite level.... drove us to the division.

See... i can play too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please explain. Some of those numbers suggest that neither does Datsyuk.

Because of how the players were used... the finalists were all used as the primary forces against the opposition's top offensive threats..

Because Bourque was used 3-5 minutes less per game..... suggesting he wasn't a primary defensive force.... he wasn't being used to matchup versus the top lines like the other players.

The most obvious answer - the defensive responsibilities of a center by far trump what the responsibilities of a winger is. Not even an argument. Any hockey player can enlighten you on that fact... ask around... or ask me.

Because Datsuyk was 2nd in Tkw and Richards 3rd and Kesler 8th.

Defensive zone faceoffs - win a faceoff-> control the play, stifle the attack against......

Those would be the big ones that pop out....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He got top 6 minutes last season and in the playoffs as well, he also spent quite a bit of time on the Detroit PP.

he was the 7th ranked forward on the team in ice time during the regular season.

He was 6th in the post season because Datsuyk had dropped to 7th with injuries...

As long as we are talking hypotheticals and neither team is dealing with injuries, Calgary's second line doesn't go down at the same time and they maintain the division lead. :rolleyes:

a lead they never would of had if Luongo didn't go down....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know this how? Oh right hypotheticals.

exactly.... just threw your hypothetical right back at ya..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can continue this debate if you like, but it seems that you are more content to just proclaim yourself the winner without actually presenting anything of actual merit. Maybe that's how you are taught to argue in Vancouver, simply wave your hands and then shout "I win!", but that seems like something that you and your "buddy" can do with one another off-line.

ok. you win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, I have a new debate for you Canuck fans, head to head with the top prospects

Backlund>>>Hodgson

Hodgson is good, but size and skill, which Backlund has, always wins in the NHL level

Mikael%20Backlund.jpgvs cody%20hodgson.jpg

Mikael Backlund......................Cody Hodgson

March 17, 1989......................February 18, 1990

183cm, 6'0....................................182cm, 6'0

~195lbs.........................................~190lbs

..

The CHL regular season.. Backlund came over part way thru... (adjustments, WHL vs OHL etc)

Backlund 28gms 12g 18a 30pts

Hodgson 53gms 43g 49a 92pts

This yr's CHL playoffs...

Backlund (20yrs old)- 21gms 12g 18a 30pts. Ranked 1st on his team in goals, 3rd in points.

Hodgson (19yrs old) - 19gms 11g 20a 31pts. Ranked 2nd in goals and 1st in points.

World Juniors

Backlund

2007 Sweden U18 6gm 6g 1a 7pts 17 yr old - Bronze (2nd in team scoring, 10th overall)

2008 Sweden WJC 6gm 3g 4a 7pts 18 yr old - Silver (tied team leader in scoring, 12th overall)

2009 Sweden WJC 6gm 5g 2a 7pts 19 yr old - Silver (2nd in team scoring, 17th overall. 1st in team goals)

Hodgson

2008 Canada U18 7gm 2g 10a 12pts 17 yr old - Gold, Captain (Leading scorer in the tourney)

2009 Canada WJC 6gm 5g 11a 16pts 18 yr old - Gold (Leading scorer in the tourney)

Stats don't tell the whole story.... They don't measure intangibles, leadership ability or locker room presence.

Awards - from Wiki

Backlund http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikael_Backlund[/post]

Won the TV-pucken MVP Award in 2006.

Won the TV-pucken Sven Tumba Award (Best Forward) in 2006.

Named CHL Player of the Week on April 21, 2009.

Hodgson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cody_Hodgson

(left off the player of the week/month awards and all-star stuff - too cluttered)

Named ADT Canada-Russia Challenge Player of the Game for Game 3, 2008.[13]

Won the William Hanley Trophy (OHL's Most Sportsmanlike) in 2009.

Won the Red Tilson Trophy (OHL's Most Outstanding Player) in 2009.

Named the CHL Player of the Year in 2009.

AHL

Hodgson joined the Manitoba Moose for their last 11 gms of the playoffs. 2g 4a 6pts in those 11gms vs men. Garnered a lot of praise from Arneil and earned more minutes as he promoted to the the top 6.

It's close... i'm not sure who i would want. /sarcasm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who would you go with?

Butcher? cuz of the pedigree? and he's way bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive been sarcastic thru out this whole thread and have been answered twice seriously.... remarkable.

and then the others.... wow.

see ya...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why can't he play for the Moose? does the CHL hold his rights or something? Is he too young?

too young... he'll be 19... needs to be 20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright new discussion...

Who has the better coach?

Vancouver or Calgary?

Simple enough answer.

Well... i know who the more accomplished NHL coach is.

Sutter is still all potential.
He's coming off 3 disappointing WHL seasons and 2 decent yrs with the Devils but failed to get out of the 1st round.... 
took a 100+pt division winning team and kept them a 100pt division team.
AV, is a 2 time Jack Adams nominee.... one time winner.
Sutter has 2 world junior golds, and a  memorial cup... 
AV is the better proven NHL coach right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bwana wrote:


Dusty_Foot_Philosopher']That Pittsburgh example is quite easy to find with the amount of coach turnover in today's NHL. Dan Bylsma did an admirable job, but I think the reason Pittsburgh turned it around was the coaching change was a "wake the **** up moment" for them. You look at the talent on that team and there's no way they should have been where they were. Plus they just weren't buying into Therrien's system anymore. But don't forget... Therrien got them to a Cup Final as well.

I don't think People's saying Darryl Sutter "took a bunch of nobodies" to almost winning the Cup is accurate or great when evaluating the importance of coaching. I think it's a good point and true, but it was just a perfect fit there with the personnel Calgary had for that run, not Sutter bringing in genius techniques to raise the levels of all the players.

People try to say this coach is better than that coach or that coach is better than this coach, which just isn't true in my honest opinion. It's all about the coach fitting with the team dynamic, and that really can't be judged until you're far enough into the season.

Allow me to introduce another sport/coach then.  

Phil Jackson in the NBA.  He has what, 10 champ rings  in 2 decades of coaching.  Thats right, 50% of the the time he wins it all.

Now he has done this with different franchises and different player types.  He has envoked different strategies based on the different teams.

I mean I could go more and more into the details, but this guy alone is living proof of how valuable a coach can be.

That wouldn't be a very good example of an absolutely great coaching performance considering Jackson won his first 6 with arguably the greatest player in history, and then the next 3 with 2 of best players in the league...  

I mean, i'm a Jackson fan... great coach... but he's been dealt the best hands in the history of the sport as well.

You know.. essentially why people don't like to give Marc Crawford much credit for being a Stanley Cup Champion Coach because of Patrick Roy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bwana wrote:


DL44 wrote:

Bwana wrote:

Dusty_Foot_Philosopher']That Pittsburgh example is quite easy to find with the amount of coach turnover in today's NHL. Dan Bylsma did an admirable job, but I think the reason Pittsburgh turned it around was the coaching change was a "wake the **** up moment" for them. You look at the talent on that team and there's no way they should have been where they were. Plus they just weren't buying into Therrien's system anymore. But don't forget... Therrien got them to a Cup Final as well.

I don't think People's saying Darryl Sutter "took a bunch of nobodies" to almost winning the Cup is accurate or great when evaluating the importance of coaching. I think it's a good point and true, but it was just a perfect fit there with the personnel Calgary had for that run, not Sutter bringing in genius techniques to raise the levels of all the players.

People try to say this coach is better than that coach or that coach is better than this coach, which just isn't true in my honest opinion. It's all about the coach fitting with the team dynamic, and that really can't be judged until you're far enough into the season.

Allow me to introduce another sport/coach then.  

Phil Jackson in the NBA.  He has what, 10 champ rings  in 2 decades of coaching.  Thats right, 50% of the the time he wins it all.

Now he has done this with different franchises and different player types.  He has envoked different strategies based on the different teams.

I mean I could go more and more into the details, but this guy alone is living proof of how valuable a coach can be.

That wouldn't be a very good example of an absolutely great coaching performance considering Jackson won his first 6 with arguably the greatest player in history, and then the next 3 with 2 of best players in the league...  
I mean, i'm a Jackson fan... great coach... but he's been dealt the best hands in the history of the sport as well.

You know.. essentially why people don't like to give Marc Crawford much credit for being a Stanley Cup Champion Coach because of Patrick Roy.
I love it when people use that excuse, it really shows the wool over the eyes.

Was MJ really the best player in the world when he left UNC?  Of course not, he wasn't even a first overall pick.

Did MJ wins champs without Phil? No, he was there 5 years before Phil showed up and they won a total of zip during that time except a string of first round playoff exits and one appearance in a conference finals.

Phil shows up and suddenly they are pulling in rings like moths to a flame.

So why are we not giving Phil Jackson credit for helping to develope the best player in NBA history? 

Why are people saying, ya well he had MJ and so it was easy, when the coach before Phil  couldnt produce even when he had MJ?

You mention Phil had 2 of the greatest players in the league when he won in LA (Kobe/Shaq).

  Well before Phil, Kobe didnt accomplish much let alone even make the All Rookie Firs Teamt, only the 2nd.  So he wasnt even in the top 5 best rookies, let alone one of the best in the league. Phil comes in and BOOM, All-Defensive First Team, NBA champs etc etc.  Coincidence or pattern by design?

(anyone noticing a pattern of players under Phil becomeing defencive beasts on top of their scoring abilities?  Name me a few who meet this criteria not coached by the man)

How come we arent giving credit for Phil, yet again, helping develope one of the best players in the history of the game? (he will go down as an all time great no doubt)

Now Shaq was pretty awesome before Phil, but undisputabley better after.  Hey, LA had Kobe and Shaq before Phil, but what did they accomplish without him? Other than getting swept out of playoffs, not a whole lot (granted 1 time the sweep was a conference final).

Phil comes in and what happens?  Phil gets a 3peat of 3peats (well his 3peats werent all back to back.....but cmon).

All you have done is further promote how valuable Phil is as a coach, and thus how valuable a coach can be to a franchise.  He has won 10 rings and also helped develope the best player(s) in the history of the game.  He did this coming into teams who already had their players in place, yet werent winning.  Once again proving just how valuable coaching is.

As they say in poker, more important than the cards you have is how you play the hand.  Nothing makes that more apparent than Phils story of making good players and teams into champions and legends.

  

very very well said...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen I think they are great togethor but ask your self one question. if i were a gm would i trade for just one and i garentee no gm would and if one would enlighten me who will that is thanks?

Whether any GM would trade for just one of them is irrelevant to the discussion of how effective the twins are without one another.

It's obvious they are great with each other... but the point is there is no proof they would be less effective without each other.

All anyone has to speculate is a handful of games over the last 4-5 yrs... Henrik looked pretty damn good without Daniel at the all-star game.. and had a point in the last game Daniel missed... there is more recent proof that Henrik is just as effective without Daniel than there is any proof he isn't.

A couple of seasons ago they were split up for a number games by AV in an attempt to spread/spark production on 2 lines... it didn't work overall because they were playing with inferior line mates. 

The more logical conclusion has to be, if the twins were split up... and were placed with similar caliber line mates, there is nothing to suggest that their production would drop off.... Just Like Every Other Good Player In The League.

As Don has said (many times) 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

Ok let's give this thread a little focus...

Who's in for the better season... (slightly different than, who's the better player and who would you rather have)

Consider all circumstances - i.e. expected line mates, ice time, expected games - injuries/scratches, production, expected role, versatility, coaching, coaching systems, etc..

Who will have a better season this yr, Rene Bourque or Alexandre Burrows?

imageVS image

Tale of the Tape

Bourque 6'2, 205, DOB: Dec 1981. Signed for 1 more yr @ $1.4 mil.

Burrows 6'1, 190, DOB: April 1981. Signed for 4 more yrs @ $8 mil.

Last season...

Bourque 58gms 21g 19a 40pts, +18, 70 PIM, 16:05min/gm

Burrows 82gms 28g 23a 51pts, +23, 150 PIM, 16:51min/gm

- Both players are wingers expected to fulfill similar top 6 roles with their clubs. People are slotting Bourque in along with either Joiken or Langkow as his center, and Burrows is slated to play with either Sedin or Kesler.

- Both are entering their 5th NHL seasons, altho Burrows has played more than half a season more (47 gms) due to Bourque's injury history.

- Both had the vast majority of their goals come 5-on-5.

- Both are coming off of their 1st 20g seasons.

- Both are expected to receive more PP time this season.

So who's going to have the better season?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but one of the most effective lines for the flames at one point was Bourque, Glencross and Bertuzzi till injuries struck eliminating the whole second line for the flames. Well Bourque will be missing a key component of his line while Burrows gets a whole season to team with the ones that set him of fire the last part of the season 15g 11a for 26pts in 27 gms... definite top line numbers to finish off the season.

- altho he will still be competing for that spot with Sameulsson... but i do think he'll expand on the 28g he's had and breech 30 over a full season with the twins... the numbers were just gaudy with those guys together. Combined with Bourque's inability to stay healthy, different linemates, a more defensive system... i think that Burrows will have the better season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='ren1 wrote:


DL44']Correct me if i'm wrong, but one of the most effective lines for the flames at one point was Bourque, Glencross and Bertuzzi

You are wrong. It was Bourque, Langkow, Bertuzzi.

Point stands... he's missing a component of the line in which he was most productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A comparison of the back-to-back schedules for the Flames and Canucks...

The Flames:

Oct 8/9: @Oilers, Stars

Oct 12/13: @Hawks, @BJs

Nov 4/5: @Stars, @Blues

Nov 13/14: @Sabres, @Leafs

Nov 27/28: @Red Wings, @ BJs

December 27/28: Canucks, @Oilers

December 30/31: Kings, Oilers

Jan 5/6: @Predators, @Wild

Jan 8/9: BJs, @Canucks

Jan 17/18: @Ducks, @Sharks

Jan 27/28: @Stars, @Coyotes

Feb 5/6: @Panthers, @Lightning

Mar 14/15: @Canucks, RedWings

Mar 27/28: @Bruins, @Capitals

The Canucks:

Oct 16/17: @Flames, Wild

Oct 24/25: Leafs, Oilers

Oct 29/30: @ Kings, @ Ducks

Nov 5/6: @ Wild, @Stars

Nov 28/29: Oilers, Sharks

Dec 2/3: @Devils, @Flyers

Dec 26/27: Oilers, @Flames

Jan 20/21: @Oilers, Stars

Feb 11/12: @Panthers, @CBJ

Mar 2/3: @CBJ, @Wings

Mar 9/10: @Avs, @Yotes

Mar 13/14: Sens, Flames

Mar 23/24: @Oilers, Ducks

April 1/2: @Kings, @Ducks

Both teams have 14 back-to-backs this season.

Calgary has just 1 back-to-back where they don't travel between games.

The Canucks have 5... huge difference right there.

The ducks benefit by being on the back half 3/4 times vs the canucks.

CBJ benefit by having 3/4 of their games vs the flames during a back-to-back for the flames... twice on the back half.

22/28 games for the flames are road games. 18/28 for the canucks.

Huge compression of back-to-backs where there are 4 in 3 weeks for the canucks - Oct 16th to Nov 6th.

Even worse for Calgary with 4 back-to-backs in just 2 weeks between Dec 27th to Jan 9th.

Canucks have 3 back-to-backs during the 14 game split road trip... they end the road trip with a back-back and start the subsequent home stand with another back-to-back.

Calgary has the heaviest travel schedule in the league this yr, a title usually reserved for the Canucks, and the flames back-to-back schedule gives a glimpse of why...

Gillis' meeting with the NHL last yr where they worked out a preliminary road schedule seems to have worked out nicely since the Canucks (a team usually with the worst travel schedule in the league) was not even in the top 5 highest travelling teams this yr.  It's a one of the most efficient schedules they have ever had, even with the 2 back-to-back 7 gamers...

anyways.... any other observations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ i wrote the term 'back-to-back' (or variations of) 11 times in that post...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...