Millard Called Calgary "A Contender" On HCAN Today; Wondered If Jagr Would Get In Way Of Run

[DFF]

Chance of top 5 is just as good as bottom 5 depending on how many things go right or wrong

 

[Anglesmith]

I kind of like HCN but it does seem to be more of a locker-room level of seriousness. But I find it somewhat entertaining to have on in the background.

That's it. It's entertainment, but the takes from those guys on the state of current NHL teams are really not more informed than guys like us.

 

[Mr Snrub]

As per the "contender" status, I'd like to see Gulutzan coach us into the conference final before I'd start throwing that word around.

 

[Tofveve]

Chance of top 5 is just as good as bottom 5 depending on how many things go right or wrong

That's how I feel pretty much.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Saying you have to make it to a conference final to be s contender is crazy. Look at Washington. Or Anaheim before this year.

I'm purely looking at rosters. The Flames is as good as anyone in the west. And I'm a big Mike Smith fan. Always have been. I think he will be an absolute stud this year behind a real D.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Saying you have to make it to a conference final to be s contender is crazy. Look at Washington. Or Anaheim before this year.

I'm purely looking at rosters. The Flames is as good as anyone in the west. And I'm a big Mike Smith fan. Always have been. I think he will be an absolute stud this year behind a real D.

Washington is a good point, but Anaheim made the conference finals in 2014-15 too. Overall what I meant though is that you need to make real noise in the playoffs before you can be considered a contender.

 

[Mitts]

"Contender" Lol, no, you have to achieve something before being put in that category, our goaltending is still an unknown, just like some of our D, Hamonic needs to rebound as does Brodie, we know what Gio and Hamilton bring. Bennett's looked great, at least Monny and and Johnny got some preseason games in this year. We have a lot of positive things happening, but until you go out and prove it, it's just talk, it means nothing.

 

[Anglesmith]

"Contender" Lol, no, you have to achieve something before being put in that category, our goaltending is still an unknown, just like some of our D, Hamonic needs to rebound as does Brodie, we know what Gio and Hamilton bring. Bennett's looked great, at least Monny and and Johnny got some preseason games in this year. We have a lot of positive things happening, but until you go out and prove it, it's just talk, it means nothing.

That's not true at all. Edmonton is a contender this year, for instance. Being a contender is about the projection of the future, not an analysis of the past.

 

[DFF]

That's not true at all. Edmonton is a contender this year, for instance. Being a contender is about the projection of the future, not an analysis of the past.

Edmonton is a contender because of McLottery... he is just that good

 

[Mr Snrub]

That's not true at all. Edmonton is a contender this year, for instance. Being a contender is about the projection of the future, not an analysis of the past.

They're calling Edmonton a contender because a) it's a good story, and b) they made the second round last year.

 

[Tofveve]

"Contender" Lol, no, you have to achieve something before being put in that category, our goaltending is still an unknown, just like some of our D, Hamonic needs to rebound as does Brodie, we know what Gio and Hamilton bring. Bennett's looked great, at least Monny and and Johnny got some preseason games in this year. We have a lot of positive things happening, but until you go out and prove it, it's just talk, it means nothing.

I think a huge thing about this year is what you touched on - Monny and Gaudreau getting some playing time in the preseason. Last year had such a downer start for those two - Johnny in particular. And then of course the broken hand etc. This year could seriously be a lot different based off of the first couple of months of last year alone.

 

[Mitts]

That's not true at all. Edmonton is a contender this year, for instance. Being a contender is about the projection of the future, not an analysis of the past.

I disagree, projections are hollow without evidence, having a " The second or third best D" on paper means nothing if you don't play like it. Contenders are not paper champions, they prove their worth with consistency, we have no idea how the goaltending will shake out, so how can a team with so many question marks be a contender ?

 

[Anglesmith]

I disagree, projections are hollow without evidence, having a " The second or third best D" on paper means nothing if you don't play like it. Contenders are not paper champions, they prove their worth with consistency, we have no idea how the goaltending will shake out, so how can a team with so many question marks be a contender ?

There's no such thing as evidence when you're predicting the future. There is only your opinion, and how you choose to justify it. Past performance is only part of the equation.

 

[Zirakzigil]

Contender? Have the Flames beat the Ducks in their pond yet? Lets not get ahead of ourselves. This is the team that got swept in round 1 last year.

 

[Anglesmith]

Contender? Have the Flames beat the Ducks in their pond yet? Lets not get ahead of ourselves. This is the team that got swept in round 1 last year.

Meh. They outplayed the Ducks, which is what matters going forward. And there are plenty of reasons to expect this year's team to be better.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Probably the best roster the Flames have put up since 08. As long as Smith is decent I see no reason they can't contend for a division. Edmonton and Anaheim aren't a cut above IMO. They do have to have a much better record against their division tho and breaking the Ponda curse is a must.

Cup contenders? Not ready to go that far. There's much better teams in the central and metro.

 

[Mitts]

There's no such thing as evidence when you're predicting the future. There is only your opinion, and how you choose to justify it. Past performance is only part of the equation.

Past performance is evidence, and of course it's part of the equation. You claim there is no evidence when predicting the future then immediately contradict yourself by saying "There is only your opinion, and how you choose to justify it" How you choose to justify it is an opinion formed from evidence, like player and teams past performance, you analyze and try to deduce how they will perform in the future based on past evidence, team dynamics etc..

 

[Anglesmith]

Past performance is evidence, and of course it's part of the equation. You claim there is no evidence when predicting the future then immediately contradict yourself by saying "There is only your opinion, and how you choose to justify it" How you choose to justify it is an opinion formed from evidence, like player and teams past performance, you analyze and try to deduce how they will perform in the future based on past evidence, team dynamics etc..

No. It's not evidence of what the future holds. Evidence of what the team can do, sure, but not what they will do. You can use past performance as why you think a team is a contender if you wish, but is it proof? Hell no. It's just something to consider when trying to predict how things will go.

If you're saying that a team can't be a contender without past success, you're saying that previous Stanley Cup winners won the Cup without contending for it, like the Bruins in 2011 or the Kings in 2012. Which is just a silly thing to suggest.

 

[Zirakzigil]

Meh. They outplayed the Ducks, which is what matters going forward. And there are plenty of reasons to expect this year's team to be better.

Wins are what matters and the Flames cant beat them, doesnt matter if they out played them. The Flames are a playoff team, not a contender. And they are closer to being outside the playoffs then a threat to win it all in my opinion.

 

[Mitts]

No. It's not evidence of what the future holds. Evidence of what the team can do, sure, but not what they will do. You can use past performance as why you think a team is a contender if you wish, but is it proof? Hell no. It's just something to consider when trying to predict how things will go.

If you're saying that a team can't be a contender without past success, you're saying that previous Stanley Cup winners won the Cup without contending for it, like the Bruins in 2011 or the Kings in 2012. Which is just a silly thing to suggest.

First of all I didn't suggest anything, so don't put words in my mouth. Here is the problem, if you want to use "contender" in that context, then every team is a contender, then why even use the word ? It becomes meaningless. Contender is never used to describe any old team. Past success does not necessarily mean having cups, how about making the playoffs multiple years in a row ? Winning rounds ? Winning your division ? Finishing high in the standings? Etc. We've done none of that on any kind of consistent basis. Can we win the cup ? Of course, any team has that chance, but it doesn't make us "contenders".

"You can use past performance as why you think a team is a contender if you wish, but is it proof? Hell no. It's just something to consider when trying to predict how things will go." Who said anything about proof ? I said "you analyze and try to deduce how they will perform in the future based on past evidence, team dynamics etc." Any prognostication is based on something you've seen in the past, either from the players or the team, that form your current opinion. I feel like were going around in circles here.

 

[Skobel24]

The Oilers have no depth imo. Anaheim dominated them outside of Cam Talbot who is a legit top 5 goalie.

The Ducks are hurting and this is the year we surpass them I think.

Chicago took a big step back. The Jets can't play defence. Dallas could be good but that blue line is still pretty embarrassing. We actually finished higher in the standings then Nashville. They lost Ellis for a long time and we added Smith and Hamonic

The west is wide open. Anyone who doesn't see that is blind imo.

Correct, but that doesn't make the Flames a favorite. There are just as many question marks about the Flames than other teams. I'd bet on Anaheim over Calgary.

 

[Anglesmith]

First of all I didn't suggest anything, so don't put words in my mouth. Here is the problem, if you want to use "contender" in that context, then every team is a contender, then why even use the word ? It becomes meaningless. Contender is never used to describe any old team. Past success does not necessarily mean having cups, how about making the playoffs multiple years in a row ? Winning rounds ? Winning your division ? Finishing high in the standings? Etc. We've done none of that on any kind of consistent basis. Can we win the cup ? Of course, any team has that chance, but it doesn't make us "contenders".

"You can use past performance as why you think a team is a contender if you wish, but is it proof? Hell no. It's just something to consider when trying to predict how things will go." Who said anything about proof ? I said "you analyze and try to deduce how they will perform in the future based on past evidence, team dynamics etc." Any prognostication is based on something you've seen in the past, either from the players or the team, that form your current opinion. I feel like were going around in circles here.

You could make an argument, if you wanted to, that you think any team is a contender. You would look ridiculous with certain teams, but not with a team like the Flames.

The fact that teams, historically, don't need to have had multiple years at the top of the standings, multiple deep playoff runs or anything like that in order to win the Cup means that if you're looking at what teams are contenders to win the Cup, you can't simply blanket eliminate teams that haven't done this. It doesn't make your analysis more correct.

At the end of the day, if someone predicts the Oilers or the Flames to be contenders to win the Cup this year, you can kick and scream about it all you like because the teams don't fit your arbitrary set of rules, but if they do win, they were right and you were wrong. It seems like you acknowledge this (you say that of course any team has that chance), but you're saying that yes, there's a chance they could win, but you're not allowed to predict that by calling them contenders. You have to let it be a surprise. I feel like this is a pretty arbitrary rule you've made up.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

I wonder if Darren Millard knows that him keeping his foot out of his mouth is what is keeping him from even slight respectability.

 

[Tofveve]

They talked about it again today. Wilson, Kipreous and the guy filling in for Millard. The general thought that both Calgary and Edmonton are teams that should contend to go deep into the playoffs, not just be competing for a spot. I think Edmonton was given the slightly higher expectation.

 

[Mitts]

You could make an argument, if you wanted to, that you think any team is a contender. You would look ridiculous with certain teams, but not with a team like the Flames.

The fact that teams, historically, don't need to have had multiple years at the top of the standings, multiple deep playoff runs or anything like that in order to win the Cup means that if you're looking at what teams are contenders to win the Cup, you can't simply blanket eliminate teams that haven't done this. It doesn't make your analysis more correct.

At the end of the day, if someone predicts the Oilers or the Flames to be contenders to win the Cup this year, you can kick and scream about it all you like because the teams don't fit your arbitrary set of rules, but if they do win, they were right and you were wrong. It seems like you acknowledge this (you say that of course any team has that chance), but you're saying that yes, there's a chance they could win, but you're not allowed to predict that by calling them contenders. You have to let it be a surprise. I feel like this is a pretty arbitrary rule you've made up.

Like I said were running in circles here, were not going to see eye to eye, I don't swallow what the media feeds me if it doesn't jive with reality. You want to believe that badly the Flames are contenders because some talking head said so, by all means, you're welcome to it. Does that mean I don't think the Flames can win a Cup, of course not, Smith could play out of his mind, Hamonic could rebound, Brodie could find his game again, Sam could have a breakout season, Jags could play great, Johnny could play consistent. . Our team is full of if's, i'll call them contenders when they put some things together, not just on paper. I'm done arguing semantics of what "evidence" and "contender" mean.