tmurfin
That’s the joke
- May 8, 2010
- 11,243
- 1,280
And frankly, we're lucky to be at .500, if it weren't for Smith who knows how bad our record would be.
GDT: Flames in St. Louis. 25 Oct. 2017 at 6pm MT on SN360
- Thread starter Anglesmith
- Start date
Tkachuk Norris
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2012
- 15,667
- 6,782
I think we played pretty good with a backup on the 2nd night of a back to back against a good team.
Dack
Registered User
- Jun 16, 2014
- 3,915
- 3,546
His breakout passing is horrible. Last night was like the 4th or 5th time in 10 games that he's passed it right to a forchecker in the slot. The only part of him I've really liked is that he seals off the cycle and can take the puck away.
Baxterman
Registered User
- Aug 27, 2017
- 6,939
- 1,499
I don't remember trading a kings ransom for anyone.
And Hamonic has been a hell of a lot better than a 5th guy.
So not really sure who you are talking about.
Baxterman
Registered User
- Aug 27, 2017
- 6,939
- 1,499
I don't think it would be that bad. Smith played well so far this season but i think his play has started to get a little bit overblown.
There is maybe 1 or 2 games that he was a huge difference and some more in which he was very good but the team in front him was as well so we likely win anyways.
tmurfin
That’s the joke
- May 8, 2010
- 11,243
- 1,280
He hasn't been a brick wall, but he's bailed us out on a lot of penalty kills. We're top 5 in penalties taken, and middle of the pack pk%, I don't think that's the case if Smiths not in net most nights.
We're also 7th in average shots against, and middle of the pack in average GA. He's been a pretty big difference maker.
Baxterman
Registered User
- Aug 27, 2017
- 6,939
- 1,499
I guess it depends if we are replacing Smith with another starter level goalie or just taking him out and saying Lack is starting those games.
Looking at the schedule the only game I see changing from a win to a loss is potentially Anaheim. I think Smith played well in the other games but we still likely beat Winnipeg, LA, Vancouver and Nashville with a decent starter in net.
Baxterman
Registered User
- Aug 27, 2017
- 6,939
- 1,499
We scored 6 against Winnipeg and 5 against Vancouver and they never really seemed a threat to score any more than that against us, i don't see how we lose either of those games with just another guy in net.
Against LA I don't remember Smith standing on his head so again not sure how we lose that game either with an average goalie in net. Nashville was really the same thing. Smith played well but not outstanding, I don't see how we lose that game with an average goalie.
I just don't see how we are 1-9 without Smith unless you are saying that we just take him out and don't address the goalie issue which is kind of pointless because there is no way that would happen.
Hamonic needs to play a lot better if that trade is gonna pay off for us. He was an excellent player prior to last season and I thought for sure he was gonna return to that form of himself but he clearly hasn't yet. I'm still holding out lots of hope for him to do so but he's been very underwhelming thus far this season.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
I disagree. He's been great. I'm really happy with what we've seen from him so far.
I think people are just seeing how much better he is than Wideman and instantly jumping to the conclusion that he's been great. He hasn't been bad, but he definitely hasn't been great.
He's looked very uncomfortable with the puck on his stick, his gap control has been... well... not great, and while his possession stats are just a smidge below 50%, him and Brodie should easily be above 50% at worst. He's also showed over his career that he's not afraid to shoot the puck, but this season he's only averaging 1 shot a game so far.
I know it sounds like I'm cherry picking stats, but the fact remains he's only been about average.
There's plenty of time to improve and I am confident he will, but he's not at the level he's capable of.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
I'm just wary of the Regehr syndrome. Defencemen tend to get a bad rap if they aren't dynamic offensively, because the only time you really notice them is when they make a mistake (like not being strong enough on his stick last night making a pass). The other thing is that it can be hard to really compare the defensive games of defencemen. I see Hamonic winning a ton of battles and helping turn the puck over. But when you see a defenceman winning a battle, it's very easy to just take it as a given- that's their job. I feel like if you replaced Hamonic with an average defenceman, we lose a lot more of those battles (if the replacement defenceman even tried to engage in the battle in the first place).
So it's kind of the double-whammy of not seeing positive offensive contributions combined with not recognizing positive defensive contributions. With Regehr, he was pretty much run out of town by the fans (myself including), and then after he was gone, it became apparent how much worse we were defensively.
Baxterman
Registered User
- Aug 27, 2017
- 6,939
- 1,499
He easily been the best defensive defenseman on the team this year, not even sure it is close.
I am shocked to see someone complaining as I think he has been better than what I expected by far.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Hamonic has been awful this season. I agree with everything you just said.
I'm just saying that Hamonic has an extra gear in him that we haven't seen yet. Prior to last season, he had shown many flashes of being an elite defensive defenseman with the ability to provide decent even strength offensive production.
So far this season, it looks like he's slowly getting back into that form. He's kind of in the middle of where he was last season and where he was prior to last season. He's been much better than he was last season but not quite as good as he's shown himself to be capable of.
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
Changing teams, and systems, can affect the play of a defenseman.
Compare Hamonic's first ten games to Hamilton's first ten games.
It's not even close... Hamilton was an absolute tire fire out there.
Compare Hamonic's first ten games to Hamilton's first ten games.
It's not even close... Hamilton was an absolute tire fire out there.
InfinityIggy
Zagidulin's Dad
I agree. Not exactly sure what people are expecting. For him to score more? Be more physical?
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
Okay, I'd agree with that. Hamonic can be an absolute monster. But yeah, like LB says, compared to the last Ham-related adjustment period we witnessed, this one has been great.
Than it seems we're on the same page
Relative to last season, he's been excellent. Relative to his career prior to last season, he's been a bit below average.
Tkachuk Norris
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2012
- 15,667
- 6,782
I like Hamonic. Only time I ever notice him is when he’s making a great defensive play.
Don’t care what his Corsi is or any of that junk.
Brodie has confidence in his partner finally so he’s able to play his game more.
Don’t care what his Corsi is or any of that junk.
Brodie has confidence in his partner finally so he’s able to play his game more.
Like I said, he's been playing well. It's the fact that he's shown he can play at a much higher level that I'm saying he hasn't played to his ability.
Maybe's it's just him adjusting to the new system and it probably is that but he hasn't exactly been this amazing shutdown defenseman that some Flames fans are making him out to be so far.
His puck control has also been very poor early on. He's been a turnover machine but again, I'm sure he'll get much more comfortable as the season goes along.
Only Brodie and Stone have been worse than Hamonic in terms of High Danger Corsi For %.
He's been good, but certainly not great.
Johnny Hoxville
The Return of a Legend
Yeah LazarB said it best. Our whole team had a massive 25 game adjustment to our system last season where most looked quite poor. I don’t even think Hamonic has been bad, but he’s only going to get better. I think he’s done his job and provided the presence we have been looking for. I’m encouraged, I only worry about his durability.
