Which Flames team is real?
- Thread starter djpatm
- Start date
Flames Fanatic
Mediocre
Which St. Louis team is real? The one that was bottom of the league for the first half the season, or the one that barely lost a game in the second half and almost won their division and are on their way to the conference final?
Every team in this league has ebbs and flows. Playoffs are pretty much just whoever gets hot at the right time. We went in cold.
Every team in this league has ebbs and flows. Playoffs are pretty much just whoever gets hot at the right time. We went in cold.
Mobiandi
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2015
- 21,117
- 17,601
True but the playoffs are also about mental toughness. The Sharks went in ice cold and managed to get past the Knights after being down 3-1 while we didn't even look competitive in our series after game 1
Flames Fanatic
Mediocre
Sharks managed to claw their way back in yes, but as I said, get hot at the right time and almost anything can happen. Arguably the Sharks never lived up to their potential all season either.
Flames never put in the necessary effort outside of a few guys after Game 1. We never woke up.
DFF
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 22,330
- 6,578
The team that played like shit in the second half and couldn't figure it out in the playoffs. Look closely and you see they only won because of the super easy schedule
Until they solve their problems, they are the team that lost 4 straight to a not very good team
Until they solve their problems, they are the team that lost 4 straight to a not very good team
Nanuuk
Registered User
There's a big difference when you consider how bad they looked after the all star break and then collapsed in the playoffs. It's also different when you start cold, make a significant change like St. Louis did, and then flip the switch for the remainder of the season.
Would you expect them to come in first in the division again next year? I personally think we will be a bubble team again.
Nanuuk
Registered User
I don't think they will be a bubble team. Too much talent and a lot of depth. They faltered the last part of the season when the bumps and bruises start taking its toll. For two years in a row, the NHLPA mandated break broke up the rhythm of the team playing ever second night and for the second year in a row the team went into a funk. I'm not sure how you fix that.
When Treliving makes the inevitable changes this off-season, I'm sure the Flames will be that much stronger.
When Treliving makes the inevitable changes this off-season, I'm sure the Flames will be that much stronger.
Ace Rimmer
Stoke me a clipper.
I do wonder how that trip to China affected them in the long run. Not the greatest of excuses; I guess Boston is doing just fine.
The Flames are very much an up and down team - they can completely dominate a game and completely suck out loud. That's something that they will adjust to, over time and experience.
The Flames are very much an up and down team - they can completely dominate a game and completely suck out loud. That's something that they will adjust to, over time and experience.
SKRusty
Napalm
- Jan 20, 2016
- 2,611
- 1,062
As in anything in life the teams potential lies somewhere in the middle from their high at the beginning of January and the playoffs.
- The Flames drank the Kool-aid about how Colorado was going to be a walk. Before the boys knew it they were down 3 games to 1.
- The coaching staff failed miserably in preparing a workable game-plan. (It was not far off... the Flames in perspective took 2 games to overtime and should likely have won both considering they were up late in the third period.
- MacKinnon led his team through the trenches. He had players like Barrie, Wilson, Johnson, Compher and Grubauer playing above their norm.
- Players like Bennett that are proving themselves to be playoff performers need to be given more opportunities in the top 6 and on the PP. Peters and co should have made Bennett's adjustment after game 2.
- Johnny and Monny need to be broken up during the regular season to allow their games to grow in other ways.
- The Flames needed the game 5 compete level the whole series. Ironically luck bit them on their ass in game 5 created a much more lopsided score than the game on the ice dictated.
CraigsList
In Conroy We Trust
We went in the playoffs with “rested” players and the Avs with already played 2/3 weeks of playoff hockey. We got ****ed because we coasted in the last few games. And for that we got annihilated come playoff time.
Plus, adjustments were made after game 2... and the Avs had us figured out.
Plus, adjustments were made after game 2... and the Avs had us figured out.
Johnny Hoxville
The Return of a Legend
The Flames struggled in the 2nd half because we lost our topline. It’s really that simple. It’s also why we lost to the Avs.
Agreed. The decline in production was very much comparable to the collapse of the top line last year. That’s pretty concerning considering they were mostly healthy this year and were just a better unit overall on paper. The difference being that thanks to a weak schedule and actual depth, it didn’t look that bad overall. Ryan in particular deserves credit for his play down the stretch, in which he was playing and producing like a high end 2nd liner playing on the 4th line.
DFF
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 22,330
- 6,578
Yup, Monahan didnt show up...actually he quit playing since Feb and Johnny wasted his energy chasing the 100 pts.
crackdown44
Cold milk cools down hot food
- Dec 1, 2017
- 4,495
- 5,521
The schedule was a lot tougher first half and it got easy after Christmas. Wasn’t a schedule thing
DFF
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 22,330
- 6,578
That's what I meant, they only won in the second half because of inferior opponents.
InfinityIggy
Zagidulin's Dad
Dack
Registered User
- Jun 16, 2014
- 3,917
- 3,549
Our top 4 is the biggest reason we lost, it wasn't just the top line almost no one generated 5v5 offense and that starts with the passive play by Gio, Hamonic, Hanifin and Brodie to a lesser extent.
If you guys watched SJ vs Col did you see how frustrated Mack was that series? SJ had him smashing his stick on the boards because they didn't give him anything. They hit him when they had the chance, they stood up at the line and they attempted to get the puck off his stick. The Flames did the opposite and even if our top line was on fire it wouldn't have made a difference because 4 of our top 6 D spent most of the series watching the Avs play with the puck in our zone.
I've said it before they do this with McDavid too, they just let him do whatever he wants because they're so afraid to get burnt by him, it ends up leading to us spending the entire game in our own zone, unable to start our transition game.
If you guys watched SJ vs Col did you see how frustrated Mack was that series? SJ had him smashing his stick on the boards because they didn't give him anything. They hit him when they had the chance, they stood up at the line and they attempted to get the puck off his stick. The Flames did the opposite and even if our top line was on fire it wouldn't have made a difference because 4 of our top 6 D spent most of the series watching the Avs play with the puck in our zone.
I've said it before they do this with McDavid too, they just let him do whatever he wants because they're so afraid to get burnt by him, it ends up leading to us spending the entire game in our own zone, unable to start our transition game.
Anglesmith
Setting up the play?
Two reasons I'm not a huge fan of the premise of this question:
1) In order to get an accurate portrayal of a hockey team, you have to consider both the highs and the lows, as well as everything in between. One extreme is by no means more predictive than the other. I think there are cases like the Blues where a coaching change is made and there is an abrupt, very tangible change in the hockey being played. But for a team that was pretty much a consistent personnel playing the same system all year, the peaks and valleys all just come down to how guys are feeling from game to game and where their heads are at. To ask what the "real team" is is to ask what their "real temporary state of mind and physical health" is, which is foolish.
2) Most people care most strongly about the playoffs, and there is zero reason and no real evidence to suggest that some kind of "real team" shows up in the playoffs. The playoffs are just another small set of games, during which it is possible for the team to be playing well, playing poorly, or somewhere in the middle. Like, looking back at the last several years, what are the "real" Caps based on playoff results? Does the fact that the Lightning were swept in the first round suggest that the dominant team that we saw pick the Flames apart in Tampa this season was a mirage?
What the Flames are is a team that did better than everyone else in the West on average last year. The Flames were better than the Sharks, the Avs, etc. The Flames and Lightning in the playoffs were in a valley in terms of their performance, while other teams managed to peak, and that happens. Colorado played their best hockey against the Flames, but did not maintain that level of play against the Sharks. The Sharks played absolutely awful hockey against the Knights for three games, and woke up just in time to save their season. The only thing the Flames need to do better next year is to bring their best game at the best time instead of whatever this was. Playing their best, they can beat anyone.
1) In order to get an accurate portrayal of a hockey team, you have to consider both the highs and the lows, as well as everything in between. One extreme is by no means more predictive than the other. I think there are cases like the Blues where a coaching change is made and there is an abrupt, very tangible change in the hockey being played. But for a team that was pretty much a consistent personnel playing the same system all year, the peaks and valleys all just come down to how guys are feeling from game to game and where their heads are at. To ask what the "real team" is is to ask what their "real temporary state of mind and physical health" is, which is foolish.
2) Most people care most strongly about the playoffs, and there is zero reason and no real evidence to suggest that some kind of "real team" shows up in the playoffs. The playoffs are just another small set of games, during which it is possible for the team to be playing well, playing poorly, or somewhere in the middle. Like, looking back at the last several years, what are the "real" Caps based on playoff results? Does the fact that the Lightning were swept in the first round suggest that the dominant team that we saw pick the Flames apart in Tampa this season was a mirage?
What the Flames are is a team that did better than everyone else in the West on average last year. The Flames were better than the Sharks, the Avs, etc. The Flames and Lightning in the playoffs were in a valley in terms of their performance, while other teams managed to peak, and that happens. Colorado played their best hockey against the Flames, but did not maintain that level of play against the Sharks. The Sharks played absolutely awful hockey against the Knights for three games, and woke up just in time to save their season. The only thing the Flames need to do better next year is to bring their best game at the best time instead of whatever this was. Playing their best, they can beat anyone.
Tkachuk Norris
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2012
- 15,683
- 6,821
I think we are a very good team but we have shown to be very fragile mentally in the playoffs which is definitely concerning.
We should have squeaked out two more wins. And it could have been 3-1 or 2-2 if not for late game/ot heroics
We should have squeaked out two more wins. And it could have been 3-1 or 2-2 if not for late game/ot heroics
I disagree with this.
Colorado didn't play any better against the Flames than they did SJ. The Flames just let them to do whatever they wanted and collapsed.
HighLifeMan
#SnowyStrong
- Feb 26, 2009
- 7,303
- 2,471
How any one could watch that series against the Avalanche and believe that is a true reflection of this team's abilities is absolutely beyond me. I don't have an answer as to why it happened (as I am sure the players and coaching staff don't either) but the entire team got away from what made them so successful. That was a completely different team from what we saw for 95% of the season. When Mark Giordano looks completely useless out there, you know something is significantly wrong. That was one of the most disappointing and headscratching displays I have ever seen.
I still can't believe it honestly. It's not even the fact that we lost. It's how we looked doing so.
I still can't believe it honestly. It's not even the fact that we lost. It's how we looked doing so.
Mobiandi
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2015
- 21,117
- 17,601
This team struggles immensely when there is any pressure on them to win. While it's become apparent that this core has sub-par centre depth, the make-up of this team should've been sufficient to win more than 1 game. It starts with our leaders and none of them except for Mike Smith delivered. Tkachuk, Backlund, Gio, Monahan, Neal - some of them were kept completely silent and some of them were hurting the team more often than not.
It's become a meme on this board that we'd be unstoppable with even average goaltending and here we are, having wasted the best playoff goalie we've had since '07 Kipper. There's something to be said about teams maturing after playoff disappointments but I think our core is too fragile to recover on their own without a big move in the summer
It's become a meme on this board that we'd be unstoppable with even average goaltending and here we are, having wasted the best playoff goalie we've had since '07 Kipper. There's something to be said about teams maturing after playoff disappointments but I think our core is too fragile to recover on their own without a big move in the summer
Last edited:
