GDT: Maple Leafs at Flames Oct. 30 on TSN

[Calculon]

Which rookie could take Widemans or Gio's ice timeSven?, Monahan?, Coborne? That is a product of lack of depth.

Doesn't have to be a rookie; simply playing the third defensive pairing more to see what they've got. Butler is after all, 'only' 27. And if Hartley mistrusts O'Brien so much, he might as well give someone from the farm or Smith a shot. He's leaning on guys who are giving him immediate returns - but that's not rebuilding, that competing for the present. developing players entails short term sacrifices for long term gains.

In any case, it's a well known strategy of Hartley's he plays his top guys a ton, while giving the bottom defense pair/fourth line very limited ice time. Bouma isn't going to do much or go anywhere with 4 minutes a game.

It's just interesting to see how other teams, ones who have actually been successful in developing skilled players over the last few decades, go about the process. Hertl for example, as a rookie on a cup contending team, already averages more time on the PP than either Baertschi or Backlund. And he plays on the Thornton's wing. The Sharks are nurturing his offensive game while knowing that the defense part can came in the future. The Flames seem to things the opposite way; demand flawless defense out of gifted offensive players, then lament the lack of offense. Maybe that's part of the reason all of the Flames attempts at developing a purely skilled offensive player (as opposed to physical offensive players like Iginla) had either failed miserably (Fata, Saprykin, Boyd, etc) or have had the players only find success after leaving the organization (St.Louis, Savard).

 

[TheHudlinator]

That is probably in large part thanks to the time he got earlier in the season, when he was very much effective.

Kind of in his first game he got over 4 minutes and after that played his average 1:20ish. He lost his ice time to Monahan and Colborne as both were able to do something he couldn't on the pp. Monahan was able to produce and Colborne's big body allowed him to be an effective screen and his size helped win puck battles.

 

[Ashasx]

Doesn't have to be a rookie; simply playing the third defensive pairing more to see what they've got. Butler is after all, 'only' 27. And if Hartley mistrusts O'Brien so much, he might as well give someone from the farm or Smith a shot. He's leaning on guys who are giving him immediate returns - but that's not rebuilding, that competing for the present. developing players entails short term sacrifices for long term gains.

In any case, it's a well known strategy of Hartley's he plays his top guys a ton, while giving the bottom defense pair/fourth line very limited ice time. Bouma isn't going to do much or go anywhere with 4 minutes a game.

It's just interesting to see how other teams, ones who have actually been successful in developing skilled players over the last few decades, go about the process. Hertl for example, as a rookie on a cup contending team, already averages more time on the PP than either Baertschi or Backlund. And he plays on the Thornton's wing. The Sharks are nurturing his offensive game while knowing that the defense part can came in the future. The Flames seem to things the opposite way; demand flawless defense out of gifted offensive players, then lament the lack of offense. Maybe that's part of the reason all of the Flames attempts at developing a purely skilled offensive player (as opposed to physical offensive players like Iginla) had either failed miserably (Fata, Saprykin, Boyd, etc) or have had the players only find success after leaving the organization (St.Louis, Savard).

The last paragraph scares me so much.

 

[TheHudlinator]

Doesn't have to be a rookie; simply playing the third defensive pairing more to see what they've got. Butler is after all, 'only' 27. And if Hartley mistrusts O'Brien so much, he might as well give someone from the farm or Smith a shot. He's leaning on guys who are giving him immediate returns - but that's not rebuilding, that competing for the present. developing players entails short term sacrifices for long term gains.

In any case, it's a well known strategy of Hartley's he plays his top guys a ton, while giving the bottom defense pair/fourth line very limited ice time. Bouma isn't going to do much or go anywhere with 4 minutes a game.

It's just interesting to see how other teams, ones who have actually been successful in developing skilled players over the last few decades, go about the process. Hertl for example, as a rookie on a cup contending team, already averages more time on the PP than either Baertschi or Backlund. And he plays on the Thornton's wing. The Sharks are nurturing his offensive game while knowing that the defense part can came in the future. The Flames seem to things the opposite way; demand flawless defense out of gifted offensive players, then lament the lack of offense. Maybe that's part of the reason all of the Flames attempts at developing a purely skilled offensive player (as opposed to physical offensive players like Iginla) had either failed miserably (Fata, Saprykin, Boyd, etc) or have had the players only find success after leaving the organization (St.Louis, Savard).

Or we could look at Montreal last year who played their skilled rookie 12 minutes a night and only had 1 minute on the pp and Eller who only saw 15 minutes and less than a minute on the pp. Both players were forced to score 5v5 and work for more ice time and well they have both been good this year.

There isn't 1 way to develop players. It seems like some people are going to complain until the newest toys all get 20 minutes a night.

 

[Guido Sarducci]

With Monahan, Stajan, Colborne and sometimes Cammallleri playing center Backlund will need to step it up to move off of the fourth line.

Maybe this isn't so much about Backlund playing poorly but that the Flames are getting better.

 

[TheHudlinator]

With Monahan, Stajan, Colborne and sometimes Cammallleri playing center Backlund will need to step it up to move off of the fourth line.

Maybe this isn't so much about Backlund playing poorly but that the Flames are getting better.

Maybe not better but just have some kind of depth for once.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Then they want him to be perfect.

Nobody on this team has been noticeable at either side of the ice in every game, let alone both sides.

It was irrational and foolish to bench Backlund and Baertschi and I'm getting tired of Hartley's excuses.

This team is going to start nosediving soon, and then the majority of fans will begin to see what others are already seeing. I've lost my patience, and more will follow.

Your tired of Hartley not accepting mediocracy? The young guys are being sat because they need to be pushed. Sven and Backlund are both capable of being much more than 3rd liners. Regardless if we are going to plummet or not, no one is being handed anything and Hartley is going to teach these guys to be winners.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Of course you want him to create chances, but you choose to scratch him when he can't put a point up every game? Nobody else is doing what Hartley expects from Backlund and Baertschi, yet they're the only ones sitting.

As I said, I'm worried that we're going to trade these two (and it will be a huge mistake), but I'm more worried that they're the ones who are going to ask for a trade. And I wouldn't blame them.

Stop being so dramatic, you don't coach a rookie the same way you coach a vet. The young guys need to learn what it takes to be a top player. Hartley expects more than what they were giving so they were sat to teach them a lesson. No one is trading Sven lol.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Overplaying Giordano and Wideman, while keeping rookies on a much shorter leash than the vets suggests otherwise. Hartley's in this to win games now, not develop prospects abilities so the organization can win more meaningful games down the road. Much like how Ward was coaching with the Heat in previous seasons.

And they're different ways to send a message, especially in a rebuild; the Leafs don't scratch Kadri every time he has a horrible defensive lapse. They reduce his ice time, play him on the third line for a while, but within a game or two, they actually give him the opportunities to redeem himself. The current strategy does nothing more than makes players like Backlund and Baertschi play scared; make a mistake or don't flawlessly and you're in the press box.

You do not treat a rookie/young player the same way you treat a vet, isn't this common knowledge? Young players are on a steep learning curve and they need to be pushed much harder especially the ones gifted with great talents.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

@ HLM, I do agree with you about Glencross. He was bad long enough that I would of benched him to 100%. But I do support Hartley in that younger players are held to a different standard because they're learning how to be a pro hockey player and they can't take a night off. Especially the talented ones, they need to be pushed extra hard and that's all that's happening here. But you are right, GlenX was terrible for a while and he should of been benched.

 

[Calculon]

Or we could look at Montreal last year who played their skilled rookie 12 minutes a night and only had 1 minute on the pp and Eller who only saw 15 minutes and less than a minute on the pp. Both players were forced to score 5v5 and work for more ice time and well they have both been good this year.

There isn't 1 way to develop players. It seems like some people are going to complain until the newest toys all get 20 minutes a night.

On the other hand, Gallagher, the other rookie, averaged over two minutes of PP time per game last year. More importantly though, neither Galchenyuk nor Gallagher were ever benched last season. They were allowed to play through their mistakes; Therrien didn't scratch them for paper thin reasons and then dress Parros in their place.

There's no one way to develop a player, but when an organization has a history of failing at it but continues to use the same tactics which haven't any sort of success whatsoever, some concern is entirely warranted.

You do not treat a rookie/young player the same way you treat a vet, isn't this common knowledge? Young players are on a steep learning curve and they need to be pushed much harder especially the ones gifted with great talents.

If you're preaching meritocracy for everyone, then no, there shouldn't be one standard for vets and another for rookies.

And yeah, you want to push players to achieve their full potential, but do you that by nurturing their talents and by putting them in positions to succeed, or by doing the exact opposite? Maybe if Hartley wants more offense out of Backlund he should have actually given him more than seven seconds of PP time over the last four games?

Most fans would agree that Baertschi has been playing quite strongly since his benching (at least most will agree on that until he's benched again; then he simply wasn't playing well at all and deserved to sit - because that's how things work here). And yet, he got 43 seconds of PP time yesterday; Colborne got almost five minutes despite the powerplay looking absolutely putrid for the most part, and him doing absolutely nothing of not on it. It's not so much that all rookies are held to a different standard on the Flames, but rather only Baertschi and Backlund who are treated differently.

 

[MuffinMerc]

Backlund is in tomorrow. We'll see how Hartley manages him.

 

[TheHudlinator]

On the other hand, Gallagher, the other rookie, averaged over two minutes of PP time per game last year. More importantly though, neither Galchenyuk nor Gallagher were ever benched last season. They were allowed to play through their mistakes; Therrien didn't scratch them for paper thin reasons and then dress Parros in their place.

There's no one way to develop a player, but when an organization has a history of failing at it but continues to use the same tactics which haven't any sort of success whatsoever, some concern is entirely warranted.

1 scratch isn't a big deal either way but as of right now our rookies/young players are being treated like Montreal's players were, the overreaction to 1 benching around here is crazy.

 

[St Wardo]

1 scratch isn't a big deal either way but as of right now our rookies/young players are being treated like Montreal's players were, the overreaction to 1 benching around here is crazy.

can't agree with this more. I mean, bob hartley is a professional coach - no disrespect meant for anyone here, but you gotta think he sees something we clearly don't

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Outside of Cammy, what legit top line player do the Flames have?

Our vets are 3rd line, maybe 2nd line players at best on good teams, what is benching them going to teach them? I'll agree that I wouldn't of minded of seeing GlenX sat because his effort was terrible, but no other of our vets deserved to be sat for a lack of effort. If you cannot understand the reasoning of sitting a rookie or young player that has the celing of being a top line player and is not playing to those standards, then I don't have much to debate with you. The Flames are not the only team in the NHL to have done this, and players that have been sat at times have still developed to potential in the past.

That fact is, Backlund's play the last 3-4 games has slid in the sense that he wasn't generating offensive chances consistently. His minutes were cut as a result, he didn't respond accordingly so he was sat. Like it or not, that's how our coaching staff is going to try and get more out of our young guys. I get it, and I support Hartley because it's not his first rodeo and he's had success in the past. I also don't agree with rewarding a guy with quality minutes just because of his potential, he needs to earn it.

However I will say if a vet is showing a poor attitude or lack of effort, then by all means I'm in favor of sitting him to.

 

[MuffinMerc]

can't agree with this more. I mean, bob hartley is a professional coach - no disrespect meant for anyone here, but you gotta think he sees something we clearly don't

That's like justifying him having Comeau centering Iginla and Tanguay last seaon. He didn't need to do that, just like he didn't need to scratch Backlund in order to ice Jackman.

 

[MuffinMerc]

Outside of Cammy, what legit top line player do the Flames have?

No one. We're icing 1 second line, 2 third lines, and a fourth line.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

No one. We're icing 1 second line, 2 third lines, and a fourth line.

Exactly. And what reason does Hartley have to bench Stemps, Stajan or Galliardi? McGrats and Jackman are not regulars every night and they understand that.

 

[Lunatik]

I didn't notice it at the time but Hartley had Colborne taking an obscene number of draws last night. The final tally was 32 faceoffs taken for Big Joe. He did however go 17-15, In comparison Stajan and Monahan took 33 combined.

 

[InfinityIggy]

I didn't notice it at the time but Hartley had Colborne taking an obscene number of draws last night. The final tally was 32 faceoffs taken for Big Joe. He did however go 17-15, In comparison Stajan and Monahan took 33 combined.

Colborne is just mean on the draw, really knows how to use his size in the circle.

 

[TheHudlinator]

Colborne is just mean on the draw, really knows how to use his size in the circle.

Yea he would make a good depth centerman if nothing else.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Also I don't think he's picking on Backs. Monahan started basically on the 3rd line and he's literally passed those in front of him through solid play. If Backlund wants minutes, it starts next game. No one wants to be benched, Sven responded well, hopefully Backlund does the same. To be successful in the NHL you cannot take a shift off, that's what they are trying to teach these guys because expectations are so high for them.

 

[Anglesmith]

I don't mind benching a player if he isn't giving 110%. My issue with the decision is because it did look to me like Backlund was certainly giving 110%. Hartley didn't say anything to suggest otherwise.

If it isn't an attitude thing, there's no point in 'sending a message.' So why not play him on the fourth line and give him the opportunity to play his way back up?

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I don't mind benching a player if he isn't giving 110%. My issue with the decision is because it did look to me like Backlund was certainly giving 110%. Hartley didn't say anything to suggest otherwise.

If it isn't an attitude thing, there's no point in 'sending a message.' So why not play him on the fourth line and give him the opportunity to play his way back up?

I agree in that his effort was there. My issue is the expectations. He's not a 4th line guy. We don't want to be losers, and if we are going to have any chance at winning games this year Backlund needs to be one of our most productive players, which means he needs to at least be creating chances. This was done solely to send a message, let's see how he responds.

 

[Anglesmith]

I agree in that his effort was there. My issue is the expectations. He's not a 4th line guy. We don't want to be losers, and if we are going to have any chance at winning games this year Backlund needs to be one of our most productive players, which means he needs to at least be creating chances. This was done solely to send a message, let's see how he responds.

But benching is a tool for altering a player's attitude, and so I'm not sure what a benching is going to do for Backlund. Does it suddenly give him the tools to be an offensive force? Does it put him in a better situation to succeed? Not really.