Calgary vs San Jose 7 game series

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Kipper would be 42 this season... That trade was a win-win for both clubs even if Kipper retired a little early. There's plenty of other stuff to say (even if homer), but this statement is a bizarre one.

EDIT: Those slagging Vlasic aren't much better. Both guys were excellent for their clubs.



Man, your sarcasm detector must be off on that Flames cup comment.

If you admit that moving on from TMac helped recent performance of the Sharks, then you'd have to admit the same for the Flames who are no longer playing under Gulutzan. The two are under completely different identities and the sharks have been under the current one for longer than the Flames.

The Flames are finally unshackled from a poor fit of a coach (Gully is a cycle styled coach vs Peters is a rush styled coach) and the supporting cast to the core was overhauled this off season. As some other posters have stated, Flames are doing better now, but have higher risk of collapsing in the playoffs. I agree with that statement. I think that the two teams in a playoff series go to 5 or 6 games, but the winner will take it by extremely thin margins (ie: close OT losses, weird bounce = GWG etc.)


I'm not going to vote on this one, but I'd probably say that a Sharks/Flames series would be a hell of a series and an emotional roller coaster for both sides.

Your buddy pumped up Sam f***ing Bennett while dissing a player that has actually accomplished a lot (Vlasic).

 

[crazyfisherman]

Vlasic played shutdown minutes with Doughty, and was good enough to be selected to the best team in the world twice.

People overreacting to Vlasic's play this year doesn't matter. He shut down the lines of Kopitar, Forsberg, Tarasenko, Crosby and McDavid in the playoffs between 16-17. I know flames fans weren't watching hockey then, but get off the farm and try to keep up.

When was he selected the best team in the world twice? Hint the only time when a country is truly at their best is during the Olympics and NHLers actually gets to go, but i understand how someone who dont know hockey might get confused by this cuz all they see is ohhh canada!! Especially someone who somehow feels validated that they are winning a trade because the other player retired...

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

When was he selected the best team in the world twice? Hint the only time when a country is truly at their best is during the Olympics and NHLers actually gets to go, but i understand how someone who dont know hockey might get confused by this cuz all they see is ohhh canada!! Especially someone who somehow feels validated that they are winning a trade because the other player retired...

I read this 5 times and I still can’t tell if you are trying to discredit or credit Vlasic.

 

[crazyfisherman]

I read this 5 times and I still can’t tell if you are trying to discredit or credit Vlasic.

Im not trying to discredit vlasic, he was one of the best shut down D around, im just trying to call out that other moronic statement that for some reason called out kipper for retiring at old age

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Im not trying to discredit vlasic, he was one of the best shut down D around, im just trying to call out that other moronic statement that for some reason called out kipper for retiring at old age

Try harder.

People on this site don't go back and read the post of the post they're replying to. The poster I replied to said 'is Vlasic even in the league anymore', so I replied satiricly.

 

[Figgy44]

Your buddy pumped up Sam ****ing Bennett while dissing a player that has actually accomplished a lot (Vlasic).

And? I agree with you that some of those statements are dumb. But adding dumb statements to dumber statements doesn't benefit anyone.

I'm not trying to be holier than thou. I'm trying to say there's content in this thread worth discussing. However, it's all under 10 ft of drivel. It's not worth wading into this thread to bring up intelligent points for conversational purposes, if more drivel keeps on getting added on.

EDIT: To clarify. I'm hoping both fan bases can bring this thread back on track so it isn't just waiting for someone to shut down this drunken bar fight.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

And? I agree with you that some of those statements are dumb. But adding dumb statements to dumber statements doesn't benefit anyone.

I'm not trying to be holier than thou. I'm trying to say there's content in this thread worth discussing. However, it's all under 10 ft of drivel. It's not worth wading into this thread to bring up intelligent points for conversational purposes, if more drivel keeps on getting added on.

Fair enough.

 

[Ducksauce]

Besides Hamilton, Elliott, and Ferland, none of those players matter at all. That’s just shuffling of depth players that most teams do.

The core of Giordano, Tkachuk, Gaudreau, Brodie, and Monahan is one that has historically produced very mediocre results. That’s what I mean when I say historically.

Obviously I don’t care about what happened whether or not the Flames won a Cup before the Sharks were even in the league.

I can't believe you are being this dense. Shuffling of depth players? I don't know if you noticed, but the majority of those players aren't even in the league anymore. A testament to how much dead weight the Flames young players + Giordano had to carry around. Hockey is a team game and requires a full team to win. The Flames have not had very strong rosters the past 5 years- that has changed this year thanks to some good work by Treliving.

You can't just evaluate the core and ignore the rest of the team. If that was the case the Oilers would actually be good.

And why are you including Tkachuk? You want to speak "historically" - well usually that requires some significant sample size. Tkachuk has only played two seasons in the league.

Do you understand how a rebuild works? Typically a team drafts a slew of young talent and then let them mature and develop in the NHL while the GM continues to search and add for complimentary pieces. This is exactly what the Flames have done and now all these players are starting to hit their peak.

Gaudreau - 25
Monahan - 23
Tkachuk - 20
Lindholm - 23
Hanifin - 21
Bennett - 22

Look at how young these players are? They all have a minimum of a decade more in the league and you want to write them off because of their first 3-5 seasons in the league carrying around Brian Elliot, Troy Brouwer and Dennis Wideman?

Do you know what Pavelski was accomplishing his first three years in the league? Burns? A whole lot of nothing is the answer.

You want to speak historically? Here is something historically with some actual sample size to back it up:

The Sharks have proven to be a team that can not get over the hump despite being labelled contenders every year under the leadership of Pavelski, Thornton, Couture, and Burns. Your argument is ridiculous.

 

[CgyFlamesftw]

I can't believe you are being this dense. Shuffling of depth players? I don't know if you noticed, but the majority of those players aren't even in the league anymore. A testament to how much dead weight the Flames young players + Giordano had to carry around. Hockey is a team game and requires a full team to win. The Flames have not had very strong rosters the past 5 years- that has changed this year thanks to some good work by Treliving.

You can't just evaluate the core and ignore the rest of the team. If that was the case the Oilers would actually be good.

And why are you including Tkachuk? You want to speak "historically" - well usually that requires some significant sample size. Tkachuk has only played two seasons in the league.

Do you understand how a rebuild works? Typically a team drafts a slew of young talent and then let them mature and develop in the NHL while the GM continues to search and add for complimentary pieces. This is exactly what the Flames have done and now all these players are starting to hit their peak.

Gaudreau - 25
Monahan - 23
Tkachuk - 20
Lindholm - 23
Hanifin - 21
Bennett - 22

Look at how young these players are? They all have a minimum of a decade more in the league and you want to write them off because of their first 3-5 seasons in the league carrying around Brian Elliot, Troy Brouwer and Dennis Wideman?

Do you know what Pavelski was accomplishing his first three years in the league? Burns? A whole lot of nothing is the answer.

You want to speak historically? Here is something historically with some actual sample size to back it up:

The Sharks have proven to be a team that can not get over the hump despite being labelled contenders every year under the leadership of Pavelski, Thornton, Couture, and Burns. Your argument is ridiculous.

Bang on. Couldn’t of said it better.

 

[crazyfisherman]

Try harder.

People on this site don't go back and read the post of the post they're replying to. The poster I replied to said 'is Vlasic even in the league anymore', so I replied satiricly.

Jesus thats a dumb comment... Idk how i missed it... My bad

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

Jesus thats a dumb comment... Idk how i missed it... My bad

All good, bro.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

I can't believe you are being this dense. Shuffling of depth players? I don't know if you noticed, but the majority of those players aren't even in the league anymore. A testament to how much dead weight the Flames young players + Giordano had to carry around. Hockey is a team game and requires a full team to win. The Flames have not had very strong rosters the past 5 years- that has changed this year thanks to some good work by Treliving.

You can't just evaluate the core and ignore the rest of the team. If that was the case the Oilers would actually be good.

And why are you including Tkachuk? You want to speak "historically" - well usually that requires some significant sample size. Tkachuk has only played two seasons in the league.

Do you understand how a rebuild works? Typically a team drafts a slew of young talent and then let them mature and develop in the NHL while the GM continues to search and add for complimentary pieces. This is exactly what the Flames have done and now all these players are starting to hit their peak.

Gaudreau - 25
Monahan - 23
Tkachuk - 20
Lindholm - 23
Hanifin - 21
Bennett - 22

Look at how young these players are? They all have a minimum of a decade more in the league and you want to write them off because of their first 3-5 seasons in the league carrying around Brian Elliot, Troy Brouwer and Dennis Wideman?

Do you know what Pavelski was accomplishing his first three years in the league? Burns? A whole lot of nothing is the answer.

You want to speak historically? Here is something historically with some actual sample size to back it up:

The Sharks have proven to be a team that can not get over the hump despite being labelled contenders every year under the leadership of Pavelski, Thornton, Couture, and Burns. Your argument is ridiculous.

Why do you exclude Brodie and Giordano from that group? Those are two other guys, along with Rittich, that are playing out of their career norm.

Historically, prior to this season, the combination of Gaudreau, Lindholm, Tkachuk, and Monahan have played 1,223 games - a very large sample size. They’ve scored 336 goals in those games - a combined goals per game of 0.27. (Roughly 22-23 goals per season.) This year, they’ve scored 96 goals in 188 games - a combined goals per game of 0.51. I’m looking at a sample size that is over 6.5 times larger when determining whether or not their current rates are in line with who they really are. And again, I’m sure there is some age related progression as players that is aiding their numbers. But make no mistake - there’s some luck involved and they’re bound to regress.

I’m sure that young players like Gaudreau, Hanifin, Lindholm, Tkachuk, and Monahan have improved with age. But their performance this season is past what a reasonable age-related improvement would suggest and I suspect that they will not keep this up. They’ve got 4 players with responsible for 96 goals - 55.5% of their team’s goals - and I don’t suspect that those 4 players can keep it up. I think that maybe 0.35-0.4 GPG for the four of them would be possible long term but still slightly optimistic.

The Sharks have gotten over every single hump except for the Cup Final, and in 2016, they played the best post-lockout team to make it. They’ve actually proven to be a team that can get over the hump. Their playoff experience - 3rd in playoff wins since the lockout - should only serve to benefit them in a debate like this.

The biggest issue with them getting over the hump was always Joe Thornton failing to match his regular season performances in the playoffs. Thornton isn’t a member of the core anymore; he’s a decent 3C and even if he experiences his usual playoff drop off, it won’t be enough to make that difference. The other long-standing members of the team - Pavelski, Couture, Hertl, Burns, Vlasic, and Jones - all have a long track record of being strong playoff performers. IIRC, the 4 forwards I mentioned all see an increase in either points per game or goals per game.

Then you must consider that they added Erik Karlsson - a generational defenseman whose playoff run in 2017 earned him Conn Smythe votes despite not making the finals. When you put two and two together, I really don’t see San Jose’s playoff track record as anything other than a positive in a debate between them and a team with less playoff experience. Joe Thornton doesn’t drive the bus anymore and the rest of the guys are strong playoff performers.

 

[Figgy44]

Why do you exclude Brodie and Giordano from that group? Those are two other guys, along with Rittich, that are playing out of their career norm.

Historically, prior to this season, the combination of Gaudreau, Lindholm, Tkachuk, and Monahan have played 1,223 games - a very large sample size. They’ve scored 336 goals in those games - a combined goals per game of 0.27. (Roughly 22-23 goals per season.) This year, they’ve scored 96 goals in 188 games - a combined goals per game of 0.51. I’m looking at a sample size that is over 6.5 times larger when determining whether or not their current rates are in line with who they really are. And again, I’m sure there is some age related progression as players that is aiding their numbers. But make no mistake - there’s some luck involved and they’re bound to regress.

I’m sure that young players like Gaudreau, Hanifin, Lindholm, Tkachuk, and Monahan have improved with age. But their performance this season is past what a reasonable age-related improvement would suggest and I suspect that they will not keep this up. They’ve got 4 players with responsible for 96 goals - 55.5% of their team’s goals - and I don’t suspect that those 4 players can keep it up. I think that maybe 0.35-0.4 GPG for the four of them would be possible long term but still slightly optimistic.

My retort to that is that Bill Peters is a major wild card.

I don't know if you recall what the Flames looked like in the last two seasons under Gully. Let me remind you that our PP was near bottom of the league and we had a stupid system where on occasion, the Flames would have issues entering the zone even on a PP. Zone entries under Peters has been a huge breath of fresh air.

I won't completely disagree that a slight bit of regression may occur in terms of scoring from those young guys as the season goes on, but there's no way that they will fall back down to what it was last season and two seasons ago.

You might be looking at a so called 6.5 times sample size, but what you are seriously failing to look at, is context. The removal of Glen Gulutzan was like removing five pound weights off of all of the player's ankles who played under him. That man had the team playing a cycle styled game even though it's not designed to play a cycle styled game. He also changed the system every half season, so it was nearly like playing under a new coach every 6 months. The roster doesn't seem as slow and they seem more relaxed. Players like Lindholm and Hanifin are playing differently due to consistency of line mates and a different game plan due to different strengths and weaknesses of the roster (a luxury they were not afforded in Carolina). Playing under Peters (consistent) but on the Flames (different context) means that they are able to play in a more offensive and relaxed way, as opposed to being forced to play not to lose in Carolina (no offense to Carolina).

Our season also started with Smith posting some of the worst starter numbers in the league. There has been steady improvement from him since then. Rittich has been doing quite well so far. He mentioned in an interview that it has to do with him realizing that he wasn't playing his game last season due to nerves. I think his play is sustainable.

Brodie and Gio were posting similar numbers in 2014 before Gio's bicep injury. Both guys were horribly neutered under Gulutzan. This means that the current play should being somewhat sustainable.

The Flames may not end the season with 4-5 players over PPG. However, it's not unreasonable for the Flames to finish the season with a strong record and most of said players relatively close to PPG (ie: 0.8-0.99).

I won't argue against your points regarding SJS in terms of improvement because they seem valid, but it seems really weird that you're talking about SJS improving, but seem to refuse to acknowledge that Calgary also improved. IMO, your argument solidifies that SJS should have more consistency in general due to more experience and a strong influx of skill. Heck, Kane seems to be a Flame killer every time we face each other. The current iteration of the Flames are no longer playing in a system that doesn't suit them and has had an influx of talent. Goal tending is seemingly the biggest Achilles heel of the Flames but seems to be finding consistency. The Flames have sprinted to a higher position in the standings as of now. But the ultimate goal (the cup) is not a sprint. It's a marathon. SJS has shown that it is well geared for a marathon. The current Flames are very unknown, but the Flames should theoretically be able to run a marathon.

The game is not played on paper. There are legitimate ways to argue either the Sharks or Flames without having to resort to underhanded tearing down of the other team or minimizing the other team's accomplishments.

IMO, if the two teams meet, I think it goes to 5 or 6 games. However, I don't know who wins. SJS has shown they have a second gear for the playoffs. It is unknown if the Flames have another gear or if their second gear is even effective against SJS. That's one of the biggest advantages they have right now in that the old play books for the Flames is thrown out due to a new coach. That being said, this advantage is a double edged sword. It could swing either way.