I'm asking where all the grit went. What's so confusing about that?
Management decided that skill and offense was needed to change it up. Grit hasn't gotten us anywhere in the past decade since the cup run. The combination of the two comes at a premium cost which we cannot afford. Ergo, we only get 1 of 2.
The Flames are a soft team. Feaster went too far in trying to get more skill that he ignored the importance of having gritty, tough players. The best teams in the League have a great balance of skill, grit, and toughness. The Flames don't have that.
The team needed more skill, but a team also needs grit. It seems this team has gone from one extreme to the other. Like I said, the best teams in the league have both. All of the elite teams have that one energy line that bangs and crashes. The Flames don't have that.
You need both. The Flames are not nearly good enough to rely just on their "skill".
Right we need grit thats why the really gritty teams we have won some many cups? Grit is the most overrated thing in hockey, the Hudler line tonight because of quick smart passes and the willingness to compete. I am tired of this Sutter mentality that toughness wins championships, no it doesn't skill does every time.
Right we need grit thats why the really gritty teams we have won some many cups? Grit is the most overrated thing in hockey, the Hudler line tonight because of quick smart passes and the willingness to compete. I am tired of this Sutter mentality that toughness wins championships, no it doesn't skill does every time.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying the Flames don't have enough gritty, tough players on the club to complement the skilled players. As I've mentioned twice in this thread, the best teams in the game have skill, grit, and toughness. Just look at the recent Stanley Cup winners.
LA, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Chicago - all skilled, gritty, tough teams. These teams aren't rolling out 3 skilled, undersized lines. They have 2 scoring lines, a hard-nosed checking line, and an energy line. The Flames team that won the Stanley Cup had these 3 elements and the same line structure.
You need both. The Flames are not nearly good enough to rely just on their "skill".
Then maybe they need more skill. Or help on defense. Or for our goalie not to suck.
Although I recognize the lack of grit, not once have I been watching this team this year and said "Hmmmm, we could really use some more grit out there". We need tighter defense and more finish.
Well first we need to solidify the skill part, then go for grit. Grit is easier to buy from FA, skill doesn't grow on trees. That was the drafting policy of Dutter, draft grit and buy skill. Look where that brought us?
You draft skill and buy grit If you are lucky you draft skill and get grit as a bonus
Then maybe they need more skill. Or help on defense. Or for our goalie not to suck.
Although I recognize the lack of grit, not once have I been watching this team this year and said "Hmmmm, we could really use some more grit out there". We need tighter defense and more finish.
There have been times where I have said to myself that the team needs more size and needs more physical players, especially when they get behind in games or when they have trouble stopping teams from cycling the puck down low. IMO, the club needs at least 1 or 2 top-9 guys with a bit of grit and definitely another physical defenceman.
BTW, weren't we just talking about this very subject in another thread?
That's not what he's saying. He's saying the Flames don't have enough gritty, tough players on the club to complement the skilled players. As I've mentioned twice in this thread, the best teams in the game have skill, grit, and toughness. Just look at the recent Stanley Cup winners.
LA, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Chicago - all skilled, gritty, tough teams. These teams aren't rolling out 3 skilled, undersized lines. They have 2 scoring lines, a hard-nosed checking line, and an energy line. The Flames team that won the Stanley Cup had these 3 elements and the same line structure.
The difference is top teams have Gritty skilled guys Brown,Lucic,Hartnell etc the players we could get would be just grit and just grit is ****ing useless. He have Glencross and Iginla(kinda) I would rather run with all skill then get just grit.
The Flames are a soft team. Feaster went too far in trying to get more skill that he ignored the importance of having gritty, tough players. The best teams in the League have a great balance of skill, grit, and toughness. The Flames don't have that.
Hit the nail on the head. Feaster did a complete 180.
The difference is top teams have Gritty skilled guys Brown,Lucic,Hartnell etc the players we could get would be just grit and just grit is ****ing useless. He have Glencross and Iginla(kinda) I would rather run with all skill then get just grit.
Look at a team like Ottawa. They have 2 pretty good scoring lines, and their third line consists of Zach Smith, Chris Neil, and Colin Greening. This line is sound defensively, provides a ton of energy when they're on the ice, and have chipped offensively (10 total points between the 3 of them). Often when the Sens are down or the momentum is shifting, Paul MacLean puts this line out to get the momentum back, and they often succeed.
Some games, you win with skill, but there are games where you need to grind out wins. Sure it helps to have top-6 forwards that are skilled and gritty, but it also helps to have a 3rd- and/or 4th-line that can set a physical tone, make hits to shift the momentum, and just be able to wear down the opposing team's defensive corps.
The Flames are a soft team. Feaster went too far in trying to get more skill that he ignored the importance of having gritty, tough players. The best teams in the League have a great balance of skill, grit, and toughness. The Flames don't have that.
Who could we have got that added grit tho? Ott? we didn't have a center the Stars would want.
Look at a team like Ottawa. They have 2 pretty good scoring lines, and their third line consists of Zach Smith, Chris Neil, and Colin Greening. This line is sound defensively, provides a ton of energy when they're on the ice, and have chipped offensively (10 total points between the 3 of them). Often when the Sens are down or the momentum is shifting, Paul MacLean puts this line out to get the momentum back, and they often succeed.
Some games, you win with skill, but there are games where you need to grind out wins. Sure it helps to have top-6 forwards that are skilled and gritty, but it also helps to have a 3rd- and/or 4th-line that can set a physical tone, make hits to shift the momentum, and just be able to wear down the opposing team's defensive corps.
I disagree most you win with skill some you win with grit, my main point is who would you add and take away?
Also that is really only 2 overly physical players we have Glencross and Iginla isn't super physical but as much as Smith is so your telling me 1 more physical player and we are a much better team? I don't buy it
when everyone predicted us to finish last.
If you are lucky you draft skill and get grit as a bonus 
