This is a post I�ve wanted to make for a while, its about how the team has changed over the past 4 years going from a SCF team to a team struggling with identity as it goes from a darkhorse and underdog team to dealing with the status as a contender, and what the future might bring. So, this is going to be a thick post with a lot of points, so if you are looking for just one point and get confused, this is a mosaic of many different arguments. Some will be mixed, mashed and repeated in different in a different context. Last year, we say a team the underachieved, underperformed and struggled with consistency. The parts were there � the star forward, the strong top 6, what appears to be proven, solid grinders and support players, the elite defenseman, the premier shutdown defenseman and a strong 6 defenseman and a star goalie. But despite experience in both age, NHL and championships, this team found it hard to find consistency from minute to minute and game to game, A team formerly known to be �tough to play against� turned into a team that was now �we know they are a good team, and have to be ready� � a change in attitude of opponents comments that clearly reflect the Flames as the Flames struggled to find the winning formula from a grinding low scoring SCF team to a skilled team, and now back. To look at the future, we have to take a look back and see how this team has matured. The SCF 2004 team was a team that clicked, fired on all cylinders and had almost everybody step up at a performing level. The team had fun, Commodore, Montador, Ference, Conroy and McLennan � we all know the story. We took that formula into 2006, but quickly found that lack of scoring, but went game-to-game as if it were a business, showing little enthusiasm or fun. That problem was mitigated with Conroy, McLennan and some scoring punch in Huselius and Tanguay. Still, no dice in 2007. The team had trouble against Detroit, holes all around and getting dominated by a team that played well as a unit while the Flames performed as individuals. Clearly, preparation was an issue, and Keenan was supposed to be the mitigation. In 2008, the team again struggled with consistency, as the bar continued to rise and the Flames continually found ways to go under it. However, against SJ, we saw a higher performing team but a struggling goalie. Change is progressive. Not to rag on them again, but the Oilers are a perfect example of a team that looks for the short fix and ends up swinging extremes and struggles to mature as a team because they are not given an opportunity to mature without there being radical change. From a 300-goal team with the 3-goalies but no defenseman to move the puck, to tons of puck moving defenseman but no offense, to the high-scoring forwards again with no defensive defenseman. Teams will inevitably struggle with radical change. This is one area I think Sutter has right, the building blocks are there � Iginla, your star forward you build around, Langkow your No 1 center you build around, Phaneuf your No 1 defenseman, Regehr your shutdown defenseman, Kiprusoff, your star goalie � and you build from there. Guys like Prust may not be stars, but they are key members of the organization because they fill certain gaps that you cannot just abandon to fill another gap, such a reason that Sutter turned him down for Vandermeer. Of the top 6ers, Lombardi is key because he�s a guy in the 25 age group and there is nobody to replace him. Boyd is key because he is in that 21-23 age group and there aren�t many of him either, with a possible argument to Ryder. Backlund is key because he is in that 18-21 age group. In a possible situation, as good Backlund might be, you simply can�t just deal off Boyd or Lombardi because then you would be missing that players of that age group filling roles. Something that I can see as very important in the business that is the NHL today. Change is progressive. We saw guys like Yelle and Nilson as elite 3rd liners performing 3rd line roles that were the foundation the 2004 and 2006 team were built upon. Suddenly in 2007 and 2008, they were ineffective, but did not just get worse overnight. Why? Because they were filling roles that weren�t in a situation to what they did best. The 2004 and 2006 team were ones that relied heavily on the 2nd and 3rd liners for steady play and to grind a team down with shear hard work, consistently where consistently is the key word here. The 2007 and 2008 team were teams that had 2 scoring lines, and needed the 3rd liners to fill smaller minutes while keeping the momentum going carried from the 1st and sometimes 2nd line. The Flames failed here in 2007 and 2008 IMO, that while they could dominate for parts of games, they were unable to hold consistent momentum while teams like Detroit could. Guys like Yelle and Nilson are good for playing more solid minutes, but not guys that will build or maintain the momentum of a game for only a few minutes of a game. Most people who do play team sports here should know there is a difference when your playing minutes are cut by 20% or more, that its harder to get into the game and get a feel of the game. While the top line, or 2nd line was able to have that momentum, the bottom 2 lines of Yelle and Nilson struggled with less minutes, and momentum was lost because that simply wasn�t the game they were comfortable with. A radical change occurred on the 3rd and 4th lines, and... when change comes hard and fast, the team doesn�t adapt in time and there will always be opposition to change. I don�t think the 3rd and 4th liners that were so good for us in 2006, were comfortable with their new roles in 2007 and likewise 2008. Those 4th line minutes, 3-4 minutes, might not look like a big deal and are often excused, but they simply can�t be, because again for anyone that does play sports, momentum and confidence are huge. Those regular season inconsistencies and early playoff exits, much can be learned from it. This Flames team has won series and gone far in the playoffs (2004)... and they�ve lost a lot more, and you can learn a lot from losing that you can�t learn from winning. The Flames have had both.The upcoming Flames team sports a new 3rd and 4th line players, a new image of speed and toughness over solid and steady. Skill out, speed and physical play is in, and the 3rd and 4th lines model that of 2004. Out with the fancy playmakers for Iginla, and quite frankly he doesn�t need them as he posted similar stats whether it was Conroy or Langkow, McAmmond or Tanguay/Huselius. A radical change it�ll be interesting how the team resorts to going back to the old identity that the team was comfortable with. But as this team matures and tries new things, it has learned a lot about what works and what doesn�t work. Maturation that will be the difference in 2008. Sutter alluded to it, Keenan alluded to it. Those 1st round loses were learned mistakes, and from the mouths of a few of the Flames executives and coaches, the 2008 early exit stung harder then previous ones. The learning comes from the emotions and the swings in momentum of a game. Knowing exploit the forward momentum has you on your toes and learning how to hold off when the momentum is keeping you on your heals. About not getting too high, and not getting too low. Its not even having to be that guy that goes out to make the huge hit, get the big goal, or in short, being that hero and being that �hero� usually hurts your team, you have to play within your system and sometimes accept the downward momentum piling down on you, but that experience is about being mature enough to hold tight and ride through it. (Again, the guys here that play team sports probably know what I am talking about when I say �that hero� that wants to make that difference so bad and make that rush or that big hit, but deviates away from the system to do so and in turn actually ends up hurting your team.) Its about knowing how to react when you want to change the momentum of a game, how to give your team that jump and when to hold back. Whether its making a Sarich hit, or a Lombardi shot block, or that Iginla fight, it can be something as simple as taking a hit to make that play � you don�t always have to deliver that hit. This type of maturation can only come with experience and are as valuable and maybe more then production. It�s not about the numbers you put up and the +/- you have, but how you contribute and react to key minutes. Great players do that. Iginla is a better player in 2008 then 2001; he had similar stats, but that experience can be seen by the leadership he displays on the ice about he reacts to momentum swings throughout a game. Regehr is very steady whether momentum is on the Flames side, or not. I believe Phaneuf is still maturing and isn�t quite there, but has matured in many aspects and emotion is the last hurdle he will have to cross to be truly dominant.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Maturation of the Flames - Season Preview, and the past
This is a post I�ve wanted to make for a while, its about how the team has changed over the past 4 years going from a SCF team to a team struggling with identity as it goes from a darkhorse and underdog team to dealing with the status as a contender, and what the future might bring. So, this is going to be a thick post with a lot of points, so if you are looking for just one point and get confused, this is a mosaic of many different arguments. Some will be mixed, mashed and repeated in different in a different context. Last year, we say a team the underachieved, underperformed and struggled with consistency. The parts were there � the star forward, the strong top 6, what appears to be proven, solid grinders and support players, the elite defenseman, the premier shutdown defenseman and a strong 6 defenseman and a star goalie. But despite experience in both age, NHL and championships, this team found it hard to find consistency from minute to minute and game to game, A team formerly known to be �tough to play against� turned into a team that was now �we know they are a good team, and have to be ready� � a change in attitude of opponents comments that clearly reflect the Flames as the Flames struggled to find the winning formula from a grinding low scoring SCF team to a skilled team, and now back. To look at the future, we have to take a look back and see how this team has matured. The SCF 2004 team was a team that clicked, fired on all cylinders and had almost everybody step up at a performing level. The team had fun, Commodore, Montador, Ference, Conroy and McLennan � we all know the story. We took that formula into 2006, but quickly found that lack of scoring, but went game-to-game as if it were a business, showing little enthusiasm or fun. That problem was mitigated with Conroy, McLennan and some scoring punch in Huselius and Tanguay. Still, no dice in 2007. The team had trouble against Detroit, holes all around and getting dominated by a team that played well as a unit while the Flames performed as individuals. Clearly, preparation was an issue, and Keenan was supposed to be the mitigation. In 2008, the team again struggled with consistency, as the bar continued to rise and the Flames continually found ways to go under it. However, against SJ, we saw a higher performing team but a struggling goalie. Change is progressive. Not to rag on them again, but the Oilers are a perfect example of a team that looks for the short fix and ends up swinging extremes and struggles to mature as a team because they are not given an opportunity to mature without there being radical change. From a 300-goal team with the 3-goalies but no defenseman to move the puck, to tons of puck moving defenseman but no offense, to the high-scoring forwards again with no defensive defenseman. Teams will inevitably struggle with radical change. This is one area I think Sutter has right, the building blocks are there � Iginla, your star forward you build around, Langkow your No 1 center you build around, Phaneuf your No 1 defenseman, Regehr your shutdown defenseman, Kiprusoff, your star goalie � and you build from there. Guys like Prust may not be stars, but they are key members of the organization because they fill certain gaps that you cannot just abandon to fill another gap, such a reason that Sutter turned him down for Vandermeer. Of the top 6ers, Lombardi is key because he�s a guy in the 25 age group and there is nobody to replace him. Boyd is key because he is in that 21-23 age group and there aren�t many of him either, with a possible argument to Ryder. Backlund is key because he is in that 18-21 age group. In a possible situation, as good Backlund might be, you simply can�t just deal off Boyd or Lombardi because then you would be missing that players of that age group filling roles. Something that I can see as very important in the business that is the NHL today. Change is progressive. We saw guys like Yelle and Nilson as elite 3rd liners performing 3rd line roles that were the foundation the 2004 and 2006 team were built upon. Suddenly in 2007 and 2008, they were ineffective, but did not just get worse overnight. Why? Because they were filling roles that weren�t in a situation to what they did best. The 2004 and 2006 team were ones that relied heavily on the 2nd and 3rd liners for steady play and to grind a team down with shear hard work, consistently where consistently is the key word here. The 2007 and 2008 team were teams that had 2 scoring lines, and needed the 3rd liners to fill smaller minutes while keeping the momentum going carried from the 1st and sometimes 2nd line. The Flames failed here in 2007 and 2008 IMO, that while they could dominate for parts of games, they were unable to hold consistent momentum while teams like Detroit could. Guys like Yelle and Nilson are good for playing more solid minutes, but not guys that will build or maintain the momentum of a game for only a few minutes of a game. Most people who do play team sports here should know there is a difference when your playing minutes are cut by 20% or more, that its harder to get into the game and get a feel of the game. While the top line, or 2nd line was able to have that momentum, the bottom 2 lines of Yelle and Nilson struggled with less minutes, and momentum was lost because that simply wasn�t the game they were comfortable with. A radical change occurred on the 3rd and 4th lines, and... when change comes hard and fast, the team doesn�t adapt in time and there will always be opposition to change. I don�t think the 3rd and 4th liners that were so good for us in 2006, were comfortable with their new roles in 2007 and likewise 2008. Those 4th line minutes, 3-4 minutes, might not look like a big deal and are often excused, but they simply can�t be, because again for anyone that does play sports, momentum and confidence are huge. Those regular season inconsistencies and early playoff exits, much can be learned from it. This Flames team has won series and gone far in the playoffs (2004)... and they�ve lost a lot more, and you can learn a lot from losing that you can�t learn from winning. The Flames have had both.The upcoming Flames team sports a new 3rd and 4th line players, a new image of speed and toughness over solid and steady. Skill out, speed and physical play is in, and the 3rd and 4th lines model that of 2004. Out with the fancy playmakers for Iginla, and quite frankly he doesn�t need them as he posted similar stats whether it was Conroy or Langkow, McAmmond or Tanguay/Huselius. A radical change it�ll be interesting how the team resorts to going back to the old identity that the team was comfortable with. But as this team matures and tries new things, it has learned a lot about what works and what doesn�t work. Maturation that will be the difference in 2008. Sutter alluded to it, Keenan alluded to it. Those 1st round loses were learned mistakes, and from the mouths of a few of the Flames executives and coaches, the 2008 early exit stung harder then previous ones. The learning comes from the emotions and the swings in momentum of a game. Knowing exploit the forward momentum has you on your toes and learning how to hold off when the momentum is keeping you on your heals. About not getting too high, and not getting too low. Its not even having to be that guy that goes out to make the huge hit, get the big goal, or in short, being that hero and being that �hero� usually hurts your team, you have to play within your system and sometimes accept the downward momentum piling down on you, but that experience is about being mature enough to hold tight and ride through it. (Again, the guys here that play team sports probably know what I am talking about when I say �that hero� that wants to make that difference so bad and make that rush or that big hit, but deviates away from the system to do so and in turn actually ends up hurting your team.) Its about knowing how to react when you want to change the momentum of a game, how to give your team that jump and when to hold back. Whether its making a Sarich hit, or a Lombardi shot block, or that Iginla fight, it can be something as simple as taking a hit to make that play � you don�t always have to deliver that hit. This type of maturation can only come with experience and are as valuable and maybe more then production. It�s not about the numbers you put up and the +/- you have, but how you contribute and react to key minutes. Great players do that. Iginla is a better player in 2008 then 2001; he had similar stats, but that experience can be seen by the leadership he displays on the ice about he reacts to momentum swings throughout a game. Regehr is very steady whether momentum is on the Flames side, or not. I believe Phaneuf is still maturing and isn�t quite there, but has matured in many aspects and emotion is the last hurdle he will have to cross to be truly dominant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment