Five things: No, wait

Ryan Lambert
October 10 2013 08:37AM

1. Third-period leads

The Flames have to this point in the season done exceedingly well at scoring a lot of goals (four per game) and usually enter the third period with a lead, which is a good thing to do if you want to win hockey games.

This is a team that seems very good a building leads and, as you might expect given the makeup of the roster, very bad at holding them. What was interesting to me is that they've actually only allowed one more goal in the third period than they scored, because it seemed like it should be a lot more than that. It's kind of amazing that they could enter two of their three games with a lead going into the third period — which those who think they're playoff competitors must be heartened by — but they didn't win either of those games. Their only win of the season came in a game in which they were tied after 40 minutes.

Not that you wouldn't expect this kind of thing out of a young and/or bad team because that's almost always what separates good teams from those that are not so much good. The Flames are the latter and have been this whole time; they bleed goals and they can't hold leads and even if they're scoring a lot it's because they're shooting 11.4 percent (before the game last night). Meanwhile, they're only stopping 87.9 percent of shots. Neither is sustainable, obviously, but I know which is probably at least a little more sustainable.

2. This isn't right at all

Of course people in Calgary have been heartened by these performances. "If they're going to lose, at least make it entertaining" and all that, and the Flames have to their credit delivered. No one expected them to score 12 goals in their first three games considering who was playing and who was on the shelf and who was shipped out of town last year.

But obviously the people who want a tank-job have been ripping their hair out: Four points from three games? This is the kind of thing that's always been frustrating about the Flames. They get almost to where they need to be (in this case conceding lots of third-period goals and getting no goaltending to speak of), but also don't quite get there. That thing Kent said a while ago about the difference in results when the expectations change is true. People seem, from what I've seen, to be perfectly happy with four points from three games, but this kind of thing last year with the blown leads and so forth would have made people scream and hold their breath.

This is all going to catch up with them eventually, of course, and I still think this is a truly bottom-of-the-barrel team, but the success, such as it is lately, is extremely counterproductive.

3. Monahan's production

Something that is less counter-productive, but could soon become so if things go as some are starting to expect, is once again the Monahan Issue. Obviously through three games he's a point a game player and in the attacking zone he's looked very, very good.

But what's gone less noticed, mostly because of the context in which it's happened, is that while he was on the ice for three goals for at even strength in the first three games, he's also been on the ice for seven goals against, including four in the Canucks game alone. He has, to my eyes, looked very much "not ready" and that likely also informs that thing I was worried about this whole time: he's only getting 12:54 a night, and in that time he's getting drilled when he's pinned into his own zone.

It's kind of amazing that's even happening, to be honest, because also in those first three games, he's starting just 27.8 percent of his shifts back there. The rest are in the neutral or offensive zones, and that's the kind of thing that should be far more conducive to a better corsi rating against the kind of soft competition he's facing (15th in QOC on the team, ahead of only Chris Butler, Lance Bouma, Shane O'Brien, and Brian McGrattan).

You gotta send him back to junior. He has a lot of work to do and this isn't the place to do it.

4. Glencross to Philly?

When teams are rebuilding it's of course logical that they would be the ones most often connected with trade rumors originating in some of the league's bigger markets. And given the ways in which the Flyers are especially connected with such rumors more than any team save for Toronto, it was logical that connective lines between Calgary and Philadelphia would arise.

However, the idea of Curtis Glencross going to Philadelphia, which has certainly cropped up in the past few days, is one that doesn't make a lot of sense. For one thing the Flyers have no cap space and one can't imagine Calgary being too eager to take on an equal amount unless they were getting something very good in return. Which I'm not so sure Philly would give up. At least, not at this juncture.

Obviously, as the trade deadline approaches teams will get more interested and come knocking, and if Philly's anywhere near the playoffs they're gonna sell every half-decent prospect to try to save Paul Holmgren's job.

Glencross could at that time be particularly attractive because he's cheap and signed for next season. Frankly, I'd be shocked if he wasn't gone at that point.

5. Here's a new and updated thing

After the Iginla picture got so many complaints the last time I used it I have since updated it and I hope you all like it and don't hate me.

686dfac3780611cb7acad6ce5166c6c1
Yer ol' buddy Lambert is handsome and great and everyone loves him. Also you can visit his regular blog at The Two-Line Pass or follow him on Twitter. Lucky you!
Avatar
#1 RustyStrombone
October 10 2013, 10:10AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
33
props

Lambert, you continue to use ridiculous claims to back up your stance. Sure I agree that expectatons need to be tempered, and that we are in no way a playoff team. However you seem to be grasping at straws to point out how "bad" the Flames are. The evidence is there, but instead you pick and choose little bits of information to try to back up your points.

"even if they're scoring a lot it's because they're shooting 11.4 percent (before the game last night). Meanwhile, they're only stopping 87.9 percent of shots."

We have a PDO below 100 however you still use this to back up the claim that this hockey is unsustainable.

While you may generally have a good point, it is almost always presented poorly and in a tone that makes it hard to agree with you. It makes your aritcles difficult to read, however it usually makes for an entertaining comments section.

Avatar
#2 lionlager
October 10 2013, 11:11AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
33
props

Garbage. If you're disheartened that the flames are getting points and looking good then throw on an Oilers jersey and move there. There you can cheer for losses with abandon. Enjoy.

Avatar
#3 Tenbrucelees
October 10 2013, 09:37AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
25
props

It is as if RL trolls the website he writes for. Weird.

Avatar
#4 MyTwoCents
October 10 2013, 11:45AM
Trash it!
14
trashes
+1
25
props

Dear Ryan "buzz-kill" Lambert, From this point on I will always skip your articles. Your just a sour puss at heart and reading your articles has become a chore. I usually leave feeling sad for you and your negative outlook on the Flames and probably life in general. We are in a rebuild and are winning some games and you feel the need to highlight the teams shortcomings over and over again? Is that your only job? We are all cheering for an underdog team, plenty of bad to go around but quite a few positives as well. You are definitely the worst part of favorite website. I hate you!

Avatar
#5 Christian Roatis
October 10 2013, 11:49AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
20
props
MyTwoCents wrote:

Dear Ryan "buzz-kill" Lambert, From this point on I will always skip your articles. Your just a sour puss at heart and reading your articles has become a chore. I usually leave feeling sad for you and your negative outlook on the Flames and probably life in general. We are in a rebuild and are winning some games and you feel the need to highlight the teams shortcomings over and over again? Is that your only job? We are all cheering for an underdog team, plenty of bad to go around but quite a few positives as well. You are definitely the worst part of favorite website. I hate you!

Well that escalated quickly.

Avatar
#6 TRAV
October 10 2013, 10:11AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
18
props

I actually quite enjoy the five things from RL because they always have different perspectives than mine and they tend to make me think. It's easy to find plenty of glowing Flames praise from the regular media outlets and these articles are always...well...different.

I think that Kent and RL are partially correct when they suggest that people would be, "pulling their hair out over these losses." In a previous post someone far smarter than I countered that this wasn't entirely fair. Their perspective was that if Fans had seen a work ethic and compete level like this year that they would be far more forgiving. Too often in the past blown leads seemed to come from a lack of caring. It is far easier to deal with frustrating losses when you can see guys working hard and genuinely "pissed off" after giving up a point.

I am not sure that I agree with Lambert about Monahan. Correct me if I am wrong, (and I may be), but I thought that generally writer's on this site didn't put too much stock in plus minus. Having said that Lambert did support his point with other supporting info. For me it comes down to where will Monahan develop the best. It seems to me that he is learning and improving each game in the NHL. The bottom line is does he benefit more from playing 14ish minutes a night against the best in the world or 20 something minutes a night against far weaker competition? At this point it seems to me that he is contributing and holding his own against the world's best. I don't think that his confidence is deteriorating nor do I think that he isn't able to make creative plays. (as witnessed by last night's passes) Finally I guess as a guy that spends lots of money on tickets he is fun to watch and gives me something to look forward to on my way to the rink. I'd feel pretty upset if they sent him down to save money at the end of this contract. (especially if they deem him ready now)

Firmly agree that this is unlikely to continue but for the meantime it sure is fun to watch!!!

Avatar
#7 icedawg_42
October 10 2013, 10:00AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
14
props

Just to add a couple things -

#5 LOVE the picture. Good 'un

Re: sending Monahan to junior: whatever his 'advanced numbers' say - I'm a proponent of keeping him up. I think he's earned it. I don't think there's any value in sending him down - there's nothing left for him to learn in Junior, and since minor pro is not an option, let him swim with the big fish, and lastly it sends the proper message that this team will award performance and effort appropriately - the "dont burn a year of his elc" argument to me holds no water. It ain't our money - if in 3 years he's worth a big payday, we'll know it.

Avatar
#8 McRib
October 10 2013, 01:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
13
props

@piscera.infada

"Additionally, the OHL and the QMJHL aren't necessarily beacons of great defensive play or zone coverage - it always takes players coming out of those leagues time to adjust defensively."

Best point anyone has made on this post!! Why in the world would we send Sean Monahan down to work on his defensive game?!?!?! Major Junior is a run and gun mistake driven league where awful defensive decisions drive the play and decent players get away with far too much.

If he wasn't scoring every game I could understand sending him down to gain confidence offensively, but I'll remind people again Monahan had 1.35 PPG on the worst team in the OHL. If he was on a better team with even one player remotely capable of keeping up with him (Dante Salituro was second in scoring on Ottawa last year, a 16 year old 5'8" rookie that finished 38 points behind him) he would have led the OHL in scoring last year (i.e. never made it to us with the 6th pick).

Anyway regardless we need to teach a rookie how to play defense and want to finish as low as possible... Why would we send him down to junior again. It's the perfect opportunity where we can afford a player with a mediocre +/- that is ready to produce.

Avatar
#9 piscera.infada
October 10 2013, 11:10AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
12
props

For me, in regards to Monahan, I was always in the camp of send him back. However, I justified it in a different way then Lambert. I felt that if his offensive game didn't translate, sending him down would be best so he doesn't stagnate offensively. I feel like Monahan has shown that he can contribute with regularity offensively (at least to this point), and if that doesn't change he should stay.

To me the defensive part of his game is only going to get better in the NHL. I wouldn't say he's been horrible either - I've seen some great defensive plays out of him. It just seems to me that if Monahan can work on his defensive game against men instead of 16 to 19 year olds, he'll only get better at it. Additionally, the OHL and the QMJHL aren't necessarily beacons of great defensive play or zone coverage - it always takes players coming out of those leagues time to adjust defensively.

I guess the point I'm trying to get at is that if it's defensive coverage and speed that's holding him back yet he is still consistently contributing offensively, I don't see why you wouldn't want to have him acclimate those aspects of his game to the competition you hope he'll play against for the next 15 to 20 years, instead of against inferior competition. From what we've seen from him so far and what we heard about him before/after the draft, we know he's an extremely smart, adaptive hockey player. With that in mind, I don't think learning to be better defensively in the NHL is going to hurt him either.

@T&A4Flames

In the same vein, faceoffs are something the vast majority of young hockey players have issues with when they make the jump to the NHL. Actually, when they make the jump in skill more broadly - whether it's peewee to bantam, midget to junior, or into the NHL. It's a very skilled aspect of the game - usually replete with small tricks - and strength is a massive advantage. I wouldn't read too much into it.

Avatar
#10 icedawg_42
October 10 2013, 01:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
11
props

"Nuge" and Monahan play totally different games, PLUS Nuge weighs about 30lbs. In fact both Nuge and Hall play the type of game that makes them very prone to injury. Monahan does not play like that - nor is he build like a bird. You'll have a tough time convincing me they are on the same track. You'll have an even tougher time convincing me that using a year of his ELC (if he turns out to be ready) is "bad" for business. Calgary sits 29th overall in cap hit. SMART management is about putting the proper SECONDARY pieces around our stars when they're ready to get paid (and contend.)

Avatar
#11 piscera.infada
October 10 2013, 01:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
10
props

@maimster

@NHL93

They aren't the same player, so I'm not sure they're directly comparable. There's always going to be anecdotal evidence to support sending him down, but at the same time I'm sure I could rifle up some anecdotal evidence to support keeping him.

I said before, I was firmly in the "send him down" camp at the beginning of the season - but now I just don't think it's as cut and dry as we might want to make it seem. It all boils down to feel from the coaches and management (the people that are around him every day, evaluate him every day, and get to see the work and effort he puts in off the ice every day). So I guess I have to defer to management - if that's difficult for you, then that's too bad. I just don't think it's as easy as saying "regardless of anything, he should be sent down because he's 'x' age, or similar to 'x' player".

I don't think sending him down will hurt him - but after seeing his play and attitude first hand, I'm starting to believe that keeping him up wont hurt him either. That is, of course, barring a bad injury - which could just as easily happen in Junior as well. Either way, this kid has a very bright future, and he made me get over Barkov/Lindholm very quickly - not because I think he's better per se, but because I really like his style of play.

Avatar
#12 beloch
October 10 2013, 04:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
10
props

Re: Monahan

"He has, to my eyes, looked very much "not ready" and that likely also informs that thing I was worried about this whole time: he's only getting 12:54 a night, and in that time he's getting drilled when he's pinned into his own zone."

His average TOI/G has gone up to 13:35, and take a look at this trend:

Game 1: 11:40
Game 2: 13:20
Game 3: 13:42
Game 4: 15:41

A four point trend-line isn't exactly great data, so we'll see how things shake out in another five games. However, for a kid to go directly from junior to the NHL and get this kind of TOI is astounding.

Monahan is receiving a lot of shelter, playing against some of the softest competition of anyone on the team and getting very high offensive zone starts. However, his relative corsi is +9.00, which is fifth highest on the team. He might be sheltered, but he's showing signs that he doesn't need to be.

In draws, he's 45.0%. That needs to improve, but he's an 18 year old with 4 games of NHL experience playing against veteran NHL'ers, so it probably will.

Now, take a look at Monahan's scoring chance progression.

Game 1 (Washington): 1 6 (-5)
Game 2 (Columbus): 4 6 (-2)
Game 3 (Vancouver): 8 3 (+5)
Game 4 (Montreal): 7 3 (+4)

He might be only +2 overall in scoring chances, but there appears to be a trend of improvement here as well.

In short, Monahan is getting a lot of highly sheltered ice-time and he's actually doing pretty damned good. Mad props to Hartley for introducing this kid to the NHL right! Monahan appears to be progressing rapidly in the NHL, which is something I'm not sure would be true back in the OHL where he clearly has little to learn. If he were playing Colborne's minutes, I'd absolutely be in favor of returning him to Ottawa, but if Hartley can keep giving him minutes like these? He stays. You can see the kid's ceiling raising every game. How can this not be *fantastic* for his development?

You say you want the Flames to lose this year, but you want Monahan sent down because he might not be as competitive with the minutes he's getting as... Colborne? MAKE UP YOUR BLOODY MIND WHAT THE BLEEP YOU WANT THIS TEAM TO DO!!! Seriously, there's just no pleasing some people.

I say make the decision that's best for Monahan's development. Burning a year on his ELC this season is sub-optimal from a contract standpoint, but if staying this season raises his ceiling, you've got to suck it up and do it.

Avatar
#13 KetchupKid
October 10 2013, 10:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
9
props

@T&A4Flames

Jay has two smiles - that should count for something.

Avatar
#14 SVENSANITY
October 10 2013, 05:54PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
8
props

"he's also been on the ice for seven goals against, including four in the Canucks game alone."

This statement would be fair if he and he alone was the defensive liability. The thing about any stat is that it only tells you one part of the whole picture. You actually have to watch the games, Ryan, to make observations from the stats.

If you watched the same games i did, Ryan, you would have specifically noticed that Sean was a victim of circumstance in 2 of the 3 GA during the Vancouver game. He was only responsible personally for 1 GA in which he got hemmed in below the goal line and lost a battle for the puck. A mistake i might add all of our team has made at one point or another.

He is a victim of circumstance in the fact that the whole team is bad defensively and the whole team is making stupid errors in the defensive zone. It would be unwise to judge his fate based on defensive stats alone as they are not representative of the whole picture and therefore it's erroneous to make the decision based on them without actual analysis of the experimental conditions.

for example one does not just run an experiment, record the stats, do an anova, or t-test, or Chi squared analysis and then make final conclusions based on the stats alone. There's a level of interpretation that goes along with the stats. It's called the discussion and it's where you apply theory and though to the actual statistics. You often tend to miss this part drawing conclusions from numbers alone without any context.

Avatar
#15 Willi P
October 10 2013, 10:03PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
8
props

Typical sensationalist article by Lambert; only writing to get a reaction from the fan base in Calgary (even though he lives many thousands of K from here) while very, very rarely taking to time to respond or defend the comments opposed to his opinions. Perfect example in his round table comments, his opinion was that the Flames will get 55-60 points this year. This total would be worse than any of the Oilers teams that drafted 1st overall, any of the three times; in fact, worse than any team since Philly in 2005-06. Does he really believe that? Doubt it. Call him on it, not response. RL spews negative crap from all holes and doesn’t have the balls to defend the retorts. Writes for reaction, not content; no longer interested. Rant over.

Avatar
#16 vowswithin
October 10 2013, 10:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
7
props

I am starting to get excited about having someone young that Sven can start building with! I was concerned for awhile with the lack of center options but between Monahan and Back he should be good.

Avatar
#17 MichaelD
October 10 2013, 11:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
7
props

@piscera.infada

I totally agree. I think his defensive game will best be developed against NHL competition.

Same with Faceoffs, I remember him saying in a interview he started watching tape on NHL Faceoffs right after he was drafted. So if this year is all about development then throw Monahan in the circle with Bergeron when we play the bruins and let him try what he sees on tape on the ice against the actual competition.

Avatar
#18 maimster
October 10 2013, 12:22PM
Trash it!
15
trashes
+1
7
props

Regarding Monahan, before everyone gets excited about his scoring and using that as justification for keeping him up, that was the same thing said about Nugent-Hopkins a couple of years ago - "he's the leading scorer on the team, of course they can't send him down, that'd be terrible". Instead, he stayed up, burned a year of the ELC (which is a big deal whether "it's not my money", smart teams always manage their budgets vis a vis the cap), got worse as the year went on, has struggled with injuries a bit, and has no impact on the team whatsoever. He should have been sent back...and so should Monahan.

Avatar
#19 TRAV
October 10 2013, 12:47PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
+1
7
props

@MyTwoCents

I absolutely think that you are entitled to skip over articles if they upset you or if you get nothing out of them. I always cringe when opinions resort to name calling and or personal attacks. Hate his writing, hate his perspectives, hate his negativity... but I doubt that you know much about him on a personal level to warrant hating him as a person.

It is slightly interesting too that you blast him for being so negative and then proceed to write one of the most negative posts I've seen in a while...

Avatar
#20 icedawg_42
October 10 2013, 09:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
6
props
Tenbrucelees wrote:

It is as if RL trolls the website he writes for. Weird.

This article comes across as pretty gloomy/negative, but I agree with the sentiment that people need to temper their expectations. I'm sure management is looking at Monahan's whole 200ft game and not just the points he's putting up. I was at the dome for the Vancouver game, and I can say that he's a special player for sure..but however mature they say he is physically, he needs to work on his foot speed a bit.

I know the numbers will regress - both for and against, but after watching their transition game, there's a lot to be excited about - if they can shore up the gaffs in the defensive zone that is - but this is NOT a veteran team..They clearly don't know how to handle the "push" - that will improve over time.

I wholehartedly disagree with anyone who says this team is bereft of talent and is just flat out "no good" - that's flat out wrong.

Avatar
#21 schevvy
October 10 2013, 11:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
6
props

Where's Jarome?!?!???

In other news, unless Monahan doesn't score in the next 5 games I have a hard time believing they'll send him down. He's the leading scorer on the team, I believe he's had a positive chance differential the past two games, and just seems to be fitting in. He obviously won't score at a rate of 5 points in 4 games all season but the line of him-Stemps-Sven is really clicking. I'm not against sending him back to junior but I don't think that's happening.

Also I've really been impressed with the play of Sven, especially last night. Looks like Burke calling him out has woken him up. Helps of course to be playing with the best forward on the team in Stempniak.

Avatar
#22 KetchupKid
October 10 2013, 12:52PM
Trash it!
8
trashes
+1
6
props
MyTwoCents wrote:

Dear Ryan "buzz-kill" Lambert, From this point on I will always skip your articles. Your just a sour puss at heart and reading your articles has become a chore. I usually leave feeling sad for you and your negative outlook on the Flames and probably life in general. We are in a rebuild and are winning some games and you feel the need to highlight the teams shortcomings over and over again? Is that your only job? We are all cheering for an underdog team, plenty of bad to go around but quite a few positives as well. You are definitely the worst part of favorite website. I hate you!

Please reconsider and continue to not only read Lambert's articles, but comment under them as well - if only for my sake. I'm sure I'd still enjoy the "5 Things" pieces, but they just wouldn't be the same without the outraged whining of fans like you.

Avatar
#23 SeanCharles
October 10 2013, 01:07PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
6
props

I usually forget to see who the author of an article is until the end.

But after reading a little bit I can always pick out Lambert's....

Avatar
#24 Aussie Flame
October 10 2013, 01:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
6
props

Shocked if GlenX isn't gone, really? Between his NTC and immersion in all things Alberta, I don't see him leaving too soon. I would be more "shocked" if he left.

Avatar
#25 mk
October 10 2013, 09:46AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
5
props

That picture is excellent in so many ways...

Avatar
#26 wot96
October 10 2013, 12:05PM
Trash it!
6
trashes
+1
5
props

@Christian Roatis

and unnecessarily.

Avatar
#27 theCalgaryJames
October 10 2013, 04:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
5
props
icedawg_42 wrote:

"Nuge" and Monahan play totally different games, PLUS Nuge weighs about 30lbs. In fact both Nuge and Hall play the type of game that makes them very prone to injury. Monahan does not play like that - nor is he build like a bird. You'll have a tough time convincing me they are on the same track. You'll have an even tougher time convincing me that using a year of his ELC (if he turns out to be ready) is "bad" for business. Calgary sits 29th overall in cap hit. SMART management is about putting the proper SECONDARY pieces around our stars when they're ready to get paid (and contend.)

This is my general take when it comes to the issue of burning a year of his ELC. Do people think we wont have the money to sign him? Are the flames in some financial trouble I'm not aware of? There's only one other team in the league with a lower payroll than the flames and we have wealthy owners who have shown they'll spend money on this team. This isn't even to mention the fact that the cap will still be going up not down after this season. We have so much money to spend and build this team with. Frankly, If the kid sticks with the team and all of a sudden the flames are forced to back a dumptruck full of money up to his doorstep a year or two earlier then isn't that a good thing? It means he's met the expectations we'd hoped he would. It means he's an excellent if not elite centerman.

If the kid continues to produce (I'm aware a regression seems extremely likely) then I think you have no choice but to keep him. It seems to me that the holes in his game are entirely defensive zone issues. I also find it odd (though not surprising regarding his tired, cherry picking, rhetorical history) that RL uses Monohan's +/- as an indicator of his defensive lapses. He was a -3 in the Vancouver game but I don't really know how you can fault him on any of those minuses. Also, +/- is a useless stat quoting it is ridiculous. It's also beneath the reputation of this site to use it as any true evaluation of a player...

Monohan's defensive game is not gonna get better if he's dropped down to the OHL. He's gotta learn and take his bumps and bruises at a pro level for that to improve. Ideally I'd want him in the AHL or at least to have that option but that can't happen so C'est la vie. If he's being used by the coach regularly enough (14-15mins a night) then he deserves to stay. If it costs a year of his ELC than that's what it costs. Right now the player is letting his play speak for it self. He's got 5 more games to prove he belongs. His play is the only thing that should dictate whether he stays or not. The ELC conversation badly needs to go away.

Avatar
#28 Willi P
October 11 2013, 06:58AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
5
props

@loudogYYC

I don't see the purpose of writing an article on this hockey blog only to cause a reaction. Most of RL's content is antagonistic and reminds me of the "Equirer" tabloid style. I don't have an issue or have to agree with any writer all of the time providing they appear (or attempt)to back up their argument. Writing for reaction factor only, like the 55-60 point example, is boring and juvenile. No hate here, will simply stop reading his crap.

Avatar
#29 T&A4Flames
October 10 2013, 10:44AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
3
props

@TRAV

If they send him down it won't be to save a few bucks down the road. Offensively he's looked great D needs work. Even his F/O haven't been that good and its something he prides himself in. Whatever the Flames brass decides to do, ill trust that its the right thing to do.

Avatar
#30 kittensandcookies
October 10 2013, 11:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
3
props

GlenX will stay here forever if the Flames want him. He's loved where he lives and even runs a freakin' rodeo.

Avatar
#31 piscera.infada
October 10 2013, 01:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
3
props

@Aussie Flame

I agree completely with this. While he's probably our best asset (with the possible exception of Cammy), the guy took a hometown discount to stay here just so he could get the NTC. He won't leave unless he wants out - and that all depends on the signs of life this team shows this season.

Avatar
#32 Nathan
October 10 2013, 03:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
3
props

@RustyStrombone

Actually, the Flames have a PDO of 108.6, which is 3rd highest in the league. Also worth pointing out that the Habs and the Blue Jackets have PDOs of 92.3 and 92.0 respectively. The two teams the Flames have beaten have been absurdly unlucky in the early goings. (Washington has the worst PDO in the lowest PDO in the league at 90.9).

I think the Flames are going to stink this year, but I'm not sure why that would get anyone bent out of shape. What are we all expecting? This little run of luck has been nice, but it won't continue forever. Let's not turn into Wild/Leafs fans, please.

Avatar
#33 loudogYYC
October 10 2013, 10:39PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
3
props

@Willi P

I don't see the purpose of writing an article on this hockey blog if it's not going to cause a reaction. Every writer here has a brand and a style and that's a big part of what makes FN great. I don't always agree with what I read in Lamberts articles, or on anyone else's for that matter, but that's no reason to let the hate get out of hand.

Avatar
#34 Danger
October 10 2013, 09:48AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
2
props

#5: Perfect. I love it.

Avatar
#35 schevvy
October 10 2013, 11:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props
icedawg_42 wrote:

yeah, but the whole point is...."TEH"!

Well that's just too obvious

Avatar
#36 Parallex
October 10 2013, 11:36AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props
schevvy wrote:

Where's Jarome?!?!???

In other news, unless Monahan doesn't score in the next 5 games I have a hard time believing they'll send him down. He's the leading scorer on the team, I believe he's had a positive chance differential the past two games, and just seems to be fitting in. He obviously won't score at a rate of 5 points in 4 games all season but the line of him-Stemps-Sven is really clicking. I'm not against sending him back to junior but I don't think that's happening.

Also I've really been impressed with the play of Sven, especially last night. Looks like Burke calling him out has woken him up. Helps of course to be playing with the best forward on the team in Stempniak.

Wonder if over the next 5 they'll give him some tougher assignments. I mean if the idea is to give him 9 games to demonstrate that he can hang with men this season then maybe for the last 5 take off the kid gloves?

Avatar
#37 NHL93
October 10 2013, 12:56PM
Trash it!
8
trashes
+1
2
props
maimster wrote:

Regarding Monahan, before everyone gets excited about his scoring and using that as justification for keeping him up, that was the same thing said about Nugent-Hopkins a couple of years ago - "he's the leading scorer on the team, of course they can't send him down, that'd be terrible". Instead, he stayed up, burned a year of the ELC (which is a big deal whether "it's not my money", smart teams always manage their budgets vis a vis the cap), got worse as the year went on, has struggled with injuries a bit, and has no impact on the team whatsoever. He should have been sent back...and so should Monahan.

My reason for wanting him to go down is similar. He's looking fantastic now.. what about in two weeks? One month? Two months? It reminds me of Spezza years ago.. who passed the eye test every time he got called up. Yet he was always sent down. Monahan is younger. I'm sorry folks, teenagers in the NHL only apply to generational talents like Crosby/Ovie. Monahan has looked great and he puts a smile on all of our faces, but send him down after 9. PLEASE!

Avatar
#38 Avalain
October 10 2013, 01:38PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
2
props

NHL.com has Monahan at -1 right now, which is really not that bad. I was always in the camp of "keep him if he does ok" and I really think he has been ok.

My biggest issue is that I simply do not think that the CHL is the place where he can work to improve his defensive abilities or his faceoffs. I mean, we've all read about how focused he's been on winning faceoffs as a kid. Beating 16 year olds on the dot won't help him improve in the NHL.

IMO, it isn't in his best interest to make him learn defense against adults in the NHL by putting him against children in the CHL. As Ryan says, "he has a lot of work to do and this isn't the place to do it.". Unfortunately, the place to do it is the AHL and he's not allowed to play there. From what I can see, the worst that happens if Monahan plays in the NHL is that we lose more games. I'd say that doesn't sound so bad to most Flames fans right now.

Avatar
#39 theCalgaryJames
October 10 2013, 04:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props
beloch wrote:

Re: Monahan

"He has, to my eyes, looked very much "not ready" and that likely also informs that thing I was worried about this whole time: he's only getting 12:54 a night, and in that time he's getting drilled when he's pinned into his own zone."

His average TOI/G has gone up to 13:35, and take a look at this trend:

Game 1: 11:40
Game 2: 13:20
Game 3: 13:42
Game 4: 15:41

A four point trend-line isn't exactly great data, so we'll see how things shake out in another five games. However, for a kid to go directly from junior to the NHL and get this kind of TOI is astounding.

Monahan is receiving a lot of shelter, playing against some of the softest competition of anyone on the team and getting very high offensive zone starts. However, his relative corsi is +9.00, which is fifth highest on the team. He might be sheltered, but he's showing signs that he doesn't need to be.

In draws, he's 45.0%. That needs to improve, but he's an 18 year old with 4 games of NHL experience playing against veteran NHL'ers, so it probably will.

Now, take a look at Monahan's scoring chance progression.

Game 1 (Washington): 1 6 (-5)
Game 2 (Columbus): 4 6 (-2)
Game 3 (Vancouver): 8 3 (+5)
Game 4 (Montreal): 7 3 (+4)

He might be only +2 overall in scoring chances, but there appears to be a trend of improvement here as well.

In short, Monahan is getting a lot of highly sheltered ice-time and he's actually doing pretty damned good. Mad props to Hartley for introducing this kid to the NHL right! Monahan appears to be progressing rapidly in the NHL, which is something I'm not sure would be true back in the OHL where he clearly has little to learn. If he were playing Colborne's minutes, I'd absolutely be in favor of returning him to Ottawa, but if Hartley can keep giving him minutes like these? He stays. You can see the kid's ceiling raising every game. How can this not be *fantastic* for his development?

You say you want the Flames to lose this year, but you want Monahan sent down because he might not be as competitive with the minutes he's getting as... Colborne? MAKE UP YOUR BLOODY MIND WHAT THE BLEEP YOU WANT THIS TEAM TO DO!!! Seriously, there's just no pleasing some people.

I say make the decision that's best for Monahan's development. Burning a year on his ELC this season is sub-optimal from a contract standpoint, but if staying this season raises his ceiling, you've got to suck it up and do it.

THIS... Sweet, Jebus... THIS!

Avatar
#40 coachedpotatoe
October 10 2013, 05:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props
theCalgaryJames wrote:

This is my general take when it comes to the issue of burning a year of his ELC. Do people think we wont have the money to sign him? Are the flames in some financial trouble I'm not aware of? There's only one other team in the league with a lower payroll than the flames and we have wealthy owners who have shown they'll spend money on this team. This isn't even to mention the fact that the cap will still be going up not down after this season. We have so much money to spend and build this team with. Frankly, If the kid sticks with the team and all of a sudden the flames are forced to back a dumptruck full of money up to his doorstep a year or two earlier then isn't that a good thing? It means he's met the expectations we'd hoped he would. It means he's an excellent if not elite centerman.

If the kid continues to produce (I'm aware a regression seems extremely likely) then I think you have no choice but to keep him. It seems to me that the holes in his game are entirely defensive zone issues. I also find it odd (though not surprising regarding his tired, cherry picking, rhetorical history) that RL uses Monohan's +/- as an indicator of his defensive lapses. He was a -3 in the Vancouver game but I don't really know how you can fault him on any of those minuses. Also, +/- is a useless stat quoting it is ridiculous. It's also beneath the reputation of this site to use it as any true evaluation of a player...

Monohan's defensive game is not gonna get better if he's dropped down to the OHL. He's gotta learn and take his bumps and bruises at a pro level for that to improve. Ideally I'd want him in the AHL or at least to have that option but that can't happen so C'est la vie. If he's being used by the coach regularly enough (14-15mins a night) then he deserves to stay. If it costs a year of his ELC than that's what it costs. Right now the player is letting his play speak for it self. He's got 5 more games to prove he belongs. His play is the only thing that should dictate whether he stays or not. The ELC conversation badly needs to go away.

You have been reading my mind. Monahan has proven he can play D in the OHL, he has proven he can score in OHL; what will improve there? His skating , his strength, his face offs none of these will improve significantly in the OHL where he can dominate already while if he he plays here he will improve in all these categories. If he regresses in the next 5 games he should go down but if continues to play at this level this is the best place for him. Talk about contract is just so minor at this point.

Avatar
#41 44stampede
October 10 2013, 07:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

It's way too early to get too excited about Monahan. Personally I am impressed with the kid so far, but to make a major decision on where he ends up in 4 games is not smart. Even 9 is not enough but at least it is more than double of what we have now.

I used to think that Glencross would be good for the team rebuilding but I am starting to open to the idea of him being gone. The only way I would do it would be if there was a large win in prospect and picks. He is cheap, signed for another year and is a top 6 forward on most teams.

There were a ton of scouts at the last game apparently. Who were they scouting?

Avatar
#42 NHL93
October 10 2013, 09:57AM
Trash it!
9
trashes
+1
1
props

No. 3: Thank-you thank-you thank-you. I really want this kid to be sent down. It will not ruin his career.

Avatar
#43 T&A4Flames
October 10 2013, 10:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

At least add a picture to the "cheer up" where someone is smiling. Whether its Sven or Monahan add a smile. :)

Avatar
#44 icedawg_42
October 10 2013, 11:23AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
1
props
schevvy wrote:

Where's Jarome?!?!???

In other news, unless Monahan doesn't score in the next 5 games I have a hard time believing they'll send him down. He's the leading scorer on the team, I believe he's had a positive chance differential the past two games, and just seems to be fitting in. He obviously won't score at a rate of 5 points in 4 games all season but the line of him-Stemps-Sven is really clicking. I'm not against sending him back to junior but I don't think that's happening.

Also I've really been impressed with the play of Sven, especially last night. Looks like Burke calling him out has woken him up. Helps of course to be playing with the best forward on the team in Stempniak.

yeah, but the whole point is...."TEH"!

Avatar
#45 Baalzamon
October 10 2013, 11:36AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@piscera.infada

re: faceoffs, MacKinnon is currently at 18%. That is just mindblowingly bad.

Avatar
#46 BJ
October 11 2013, 08:28AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@Willi P

agree... while Lamberts style can be entertaining at times I would also go so far as to call it reactionary and not well thought out.

Monahan played over fifteen minutes last night. Maybe the coaching staff kept him limited in his first couple of games as it was hist first taste of pro hockey. Seems reasonable to me. Seems like his ice time is on the rise so I would just ignore Lamberts bit on Monahan here. (I am not saying we shouldnt send him down)

Remember Lambert blew up after Feaster drafted Monahan over Nichushkin.... very reactionary... how can we judge these moves by Calgary in such a reactionary manner.

Also Lambert instantly bashed the Jones Tanguay trade.

Jones has been playing great and is making some of the writers on this site look very foolish and reactionary indeed.

I can spew reactionary opinions... anyone can... I read FN for insight and entertainment these reactionary articles cause us toplug our noses turn away for a moment.

Avatar
#47 BJ
October 11 2013, 08:40AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

Lambert has always been biased against Feaster so dont be surprised at articles like this.

If you want perspective on the Flames I encourage fans to engage in discussions with intellevent of other teams than the Flames r the iolers... fans who have no interest in bias either way.

If you look around the web you will find quite a positive view of Feaster and company... Fansa formteams like SJ and Philly for example are very impressed with calgarys turn around from an old lacklustre team to a young one that works very hard.

Again dont get worked up over Lamberts articles... he has always been against Feaster... I would even say fanatically so... hence all the reactionary poorly thought out opinions...

Lamberts style is quite different from other FN writers in that in lieu of analysis we get almost a religious reaction...

it is his style... view it as entertainment not good hockey analysis

Avatar
#48 kittensandcookies
October 11 2013, 11:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

It also doesn't help that Bingo can't write worth a damn.

Avatar
#49 Danger
October 10 2013, 09:52AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
0
props

Re: #2 - here's a fun fact. "The last time the Flames earned at least one point in their first four games was in 2009 when they had a 4-0 start." Remind me again how that season turned out?

Avatar
#50 icedawg_42
October 10 2013, 11:38AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Parallex

Not a bad idea

Comments are closed for this article.