Brent Sutter Admits That Backlund Needs Sheltering
What more can I say? Backlund hurts the team, Conroy and Boyd should have been above him on the depth chart. Open and fucking shut.
5 months ago
R O
40 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Yeah. When Sutter said of the Boyd trade “we feel that Backlund is a top 9 forward on this club now…” well, I called bullshit. Ten games at 10 (soft) minutes a night and 2 points is proof of nothing. And now, well…you don’t sit top 9 NHLers because you feel you can’t adequately shelter them on the road.
It probably won’t be a big deal when all is said and done, but it does further call into question the manner in which this management group assesses and values it’s players.
i’m not sure he said that about backlund. i think he said that about boyd. that boyd should be playing in the top 9. listening now to see for sure…..
by walkinvisible on Mar 8, 2010 5:41 PM PST up reply actions
i guess it’s kindof ambiguous. he definitely says that boyd was given an opportunity in the top 9 and was “pushed out,” whether that means backlund or nystrom or any number of other players who obviously get the nod over boyd. i didn’t listen to the end because, quite honestly, i got bored.
by walkinvisible on Mar 8, 2010 5:47 PM PST up reply actions
If that’s his soundbyte from SNet the day he traded Boyd (or day after?), he said he traded Boyd because Boyd was a top 9-type player and got pushed out. He didn’t think Boyd was the right type of player for the 4th line (same basic argument he made against signing Fleury) so he traded him.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 8, 2010 8:05 PM PST up reply actions
Oh shit, that echo is back, but now it’s using different words.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 8, 2010 8:05 PM PST up reply actions
Well, colour me red faced at having taken Darryl at his word. R O called me on it at Flames Nation and he got it right. What defensibility is left of the Boyd move? Boyd also needed sheltering? Backlund in to develop over Boyd regardless of current ability so Darryl moved him so he could play.
I just can’t accept that an NHL Caliber GM can whiff so badly.
by CalTach on Mar 8, 2010 5:14 PM PST via mobile reply actions
“But an experience thing . . . and with what Connie could bring to us in the room right now, being on the road, not having last change, we don’t want to put Back in situations where he can fail and possibly hurt our team.”
I think this the quote that you are looking at, correct? Personally, I didn’t read that as “Backlund needs to play soft minutes to succeed”, I read that as “Conroy gives us experience that Backs dosen’t have, and at this point he makes the team better then Backlund does”. Which, on a overall level, is true.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
being on the road, not having last change
Sutter wants last change for a reason, because last change is a potent tool for coaches to create or avoid player mismatches. Logic and reason dictate that Backlund is not some high-flight difference maker that Sutter is trying to put out there to exploit the other team’s weaker players. Thus, Backlund is the weaker player.
by R O on Mar 8, 2010 7:13 PM PST up reply actions
i should say agreed, with jokinen gone backlund is the most exploitable. although so is conroy, albeit less so.
by walkinvisible on Mar 8, 2010 7:15 PM PST up reply actions
I didn’t notice Conroy too much but apparently he was beaten in the head territorially which is a bummer. Conroy’s too effective when healthy for it to be him, so either it was one of those games or he’s still kind of injured.
Still think Conroy wins over Backlund just based on history and a dash of reason, but yes, have to be careful with our expectations of Conroy now.
by R O on Mar 8, 2010 7:18 PM PST up reply actions
where you think backlund’s not up to par, i think conroy’s lost a step. i would have to allow that, in a big game situation, conroy is probably the safer option although from my eye, mickis looks fairly responsible defensively and far more creative offensively…..
last change would be a killer, though… that kid has no business being on the ice with datsyuk or z’berg.
by walkinvisible on Mar 9, 2010 9:53 AM PST up reply actions
Of course he needs to be sheltered… he’s a rookie. For the most part all rookies need to be sheltered. I fail to see what the issue is. Or is this just an excuse to continue bitching about the Boyd deal?
Whatever, I’d wager a large sum of money that if the Boyd deal hadn’t happened he wouldn’t be playing either, he’d be sitting up in the press box munching on popcorn watching Conroy play just like Backlund will be. In other words he’d be the one being sheltered.
The issue is we traded away a young player who could help us win a bit, because another young gun needed ice time, presumably to develop his skills. All at a cost to our team. And instead of following through on the development of said rookie, we sit him instead so that we have a better chance to win.
Which brings us back to why did we trade the first player who could help us win a bit?
The issue is we traded away a young player who could help us win a bit
Except that can’t be the issue because Boyd can’t help anyone win sitting in the pressbox. You seem to be thinking that had he not gotten traded that he’d somehow be playing quality minutes except that he wouldn’t be he’d be sitting up in the press box in favor of Conroy just like Backlund is.
If you want to make an argument that doing this isn’t good for Backlunds development as a player that’s fine, debatable, but fine. But don’t try to argue that somehow, with respect to the current season, the team is worse off because Sutter traded a healthy scratch. Because it’s pretty obvious that’s what Boyd was going to mostly be the rest of the way through the season.
Seriously, Dustin Boyd… not worth the gnashing of teeth going on here.
You seem to be thinking that had he not gotten traded that he’d somehow be playing quality minutes except that he wouldn’t be he’d be sitting up in the press box in favor of Conroy just like Backlund is.
Well, not really. I think I’ve made it pretty clear that Boyd would have been a clear #4 on the centre depth chart so it follows that he had a role to play on the team even with a healthy Conroy.
So no it’s not obvious at all to me that Boyd is a healthy scratch. Because making Boyd a healthy scratch makes this team worse off down the middle which in turn means it probably spends more time in its zone than it ought to which in turn leads to more reasonable outcomes in which the Flames are outscored more than they ought to be.
Well, not really. I think I’ve made it pretty clear that Boyd would have been a clear #4 on the centre depth chart
Sure, on the Calgary Flames where you get to make decisions he would be, but on the real Calgary Flames he can’t fill Mayers role and Conroy, Langkow, Stajan are better then him. He would have been a healthy scratch no doubt about it.
i gotta agree with parallex on this one. sutter(s) made it pretty clear where boyder landed on the depth chart and it was fourth line or pressbox. with the move of nystrom to centre on the 4th rotation, it was pretty clear to me that boyd would have been playing cribbage with mcgrattan most nights.
by walkinvisible on Mar 9, 2010 9:55 AM PST up reply actions
Parallex is right. Rookies need sheltering and Boyd sure had his share. I am not saying we got good value in return but ROs argument is a pretty poor one. Open and shut?
My argument is that Boyd was #4 on the centre depth chart and the options below him (Backlund, Mayers, etc.) suck. That’s pretty well open and shut, I mean you can argue it but reality would not be in your favor. Reality is not in the Sutters’ favor either.
How is my argument a poor one?
by R O on Mar 9, 2010 9:18 PM PST up reply actions
i think the difference is where boyd actually was on the depth chart, vs. where sutters perceived him.
by walkinvisible on Mar 9, 2010 9:41 PM PST up reply actions
I must say, I agree on the sheltering thing – Sutter admitting that a rookie needs sheltering doesn’t change anything for me (as they mentioned, the vast majority of rookies do need sheltering to some extent). I still wish he’d kept Boyd, even if it was for the fourth line, but Sutter does a lot of things that I don’t like.
Okay two things here.
Firstly, the here and now. The Flames season rests on a knife edge so every fraction of a percentage in odds counts. Maybe not so much for me since all that’s at stake is a few weeks of entertainment but for the owners it’s millions in post-season revenue.
Secondly the long term. Philosophically Backlund doesn’t need sheltering, he needs to be in a lower league. This is where his career progression dictates he would most help (least hurt) the org. Backlund even being in the NHL indicates that the org is mis-evaluating one of its own players and while all organizations do that, the fact that this org is doing it so badly and so wrongly as it does in this case (he’s a mediocre rookie forcrissakes!) then it doesn’t really inspire confidence in other evaluations of players within the org. Especially when it comes to more important players with bigger paycheques and more prominent roles.
i’m not sure i agree with you here. perhaps he’s a tweener (a la lundmark) but he’s definitely proven to be >AHL if not NHL ready. personally, i think he looks decent —-the game against minnesota (the 4-0 loss), he was pretty much the only forward that showed signs of life.
by walkinvisible on Mar 9, 2010 9:57 AM PST up reply actions
And Mayers has been supremely unimpressive, that line’s limited success (and for the most part it’s limited, can’t get too excited when they can only do it when not facing first or second lines) is driven by Glencross first and Nystrom second. So really Boyd, were he here, would be #4 on the centre depth chart. That’s kind of important especially to a coach that likes to play a 4th unit at EV as much as Sutter does.
I don’t particularly rate Boyd that highly but that’s because I don’t rate Gio exactly as highly as most either. Not to say that Boyd is anywhere as effective as Giordano but let’s just say both have had dominant games against the dregs. Which is exactly what you’d like to see your guys do with buttery soft ice time, instead of just treading water like Backlund or Mayers.
And Mayers has been supremely unimpressive.
But Boyd and Mayers aren’t remotely comparable as players. Sutter obviously wants the fourthline checker/middleweight fighter type on that line and Boyd can’t play that role so he’d sit if it came down to it.
Sutter obviously wants the fourthline checker/middleweight fighter type on that line
“Checker” has two meanings usually, one is “non-star player who plays the tough minutes” and the other is “guy who gets killed against quality”. Mayers is clearly the second so I don’t even agree that Mayers should be there in the first place.
I agree with your disagreement. Wish Boyd was there instead of Mayers all day, every day.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 9, 2010 3:12 AM PST up reply actions
Ultimately I would agree with some posters that Boyd’s absence from the team is small but it’s not negligible in the way that Toskala being our backup is not negligible. The range of reasonable outcomes gets a bit worse, with the season on a knife’s edge why make that gamble?
Plus there is always result vs. process to think about here, the result is a small piece of the puzzle that is a hockey team getting worse but the process is player evaluation that is out of whack with reality.
Well we’ve known that Sutter’s player evaluation was out of whack for a long time, at this point. =D
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 9, 2010 3:13 AM PST up reply actions
RO, I’m not going to sit here and tell you you are wrong, because we both know that you’re not, but that also depends on what we are talking about.
I do think you are overlapping three distinct issues because of their close proximity to one another.
1. That Backlund is a rookie, who is not overly impressive at this stage, but he has shown potential, and needs to be developed appropriately.
2. That Dustin Boyd, who was an asset to this team, has been traded away for another asset – a fourth round pick. Those two assets may not be equal currency.
3. The Flames being in a extremely difficult playoff miss predicament. How the current roster hurts/helps that predicament.
These issues are of course interrelated, because this is a team, but they don’t have to be as much as you are presenting.
1. Backlunds development is, if we want, totally unrelated to the other two issues. He doesn’t have to play another game in the NHL this season. He could go down to the AHL tomorrow. None of the changes if Boyd is here or not. None of that changes is we are in first, 9th or last. If you think it would be better for him to be down, then let’s hope he is sent down. Boyd has so very little to do with it (unless you want to make that an argument that none of us will ever settle on). Backlund should be playing in circumstances that aid his development…whether those are home games or road games, playoff games or exhibition games, must wins vs no wins. It was the same with McL. If you wanna play in the league, you have to rise to the challenge given to you. You cannot baby the prospects forever.
2. Boyd being here is a moot point I think. Sure, he was an asset. I liked Boyd. However, Boyd was like Lombardi…he was going nowhere. And nowhere fast. At some point, you have to give players a chance to outplay Boyd. Are Conroy, Dawes, Backlund, McG, or Mayers those players? I don’t know. BUT, if the management needs a fighter (yeah right) Boyd is worse than all of them, less Backlund. If they need scoring, Boyd is less than Dawes. If they need experience…Boyd is less than Connie. If they need face-offs, Boyd is less than Mayers. If they need….
I’ll ask you this, what reason is Boyd better than anyone of those options? Whole Package? At 4 minutes a night, “whole package” players are not as valuable as “one skill” players. If you need a crucial draw taken and Stajan just changed…. you SURE AS HELL don’t send out Boyd.
3. Press box. Nobody helps you win “must win games” from the press box, but that’s where you keep your options. See point 2. Enough said.
I’m as pissed as anyone that Boyd went for a f*ing fourth rounder. But that has little to nothing to do with Backlund.
That was an excellent comment.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 1:53 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Flames Schedule
Next 5 Games
Vancouver
|
Tue 09/21 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
@
Vancouver
|
Tue 09/21 | 7:00 PM PDT |
|
Tampa Bay
|
Sat 09/25 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
Phoenix
|
Tue 09/28 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
@
New York Islanders
|
Wed 09/29 | 5:00 PM PDT |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 04/10 | L 3 - 7 |
|
Minnesota
|
Thu 04/08 | SO - L 1 - 2 |
|
San Jose
|
Tue 04/06 | L 1 - 2 |
|
@
Chicago
|
Sun 04/04 | L 1 - 4 |
|
@
Colorado
|
Fri 04/02 | W 2 - 1 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- In which former NHL coach Ken Hitchcock foils a shoplifter
- Montreal's Price talks new 2-year contract, expectations post-Halak
- Donald Fehr aware of Kovalchuk drama, mum on everything else
- Puck Headlines: Savard's agent rants on Bettman; Halak in Montreal
- Boudreau, Crawford placed on the coaching hot seat
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
