Just a point I'd like to make: In your opinion, are the Flames a better team NOW......or are were they a better team 2-3 years ago? (actually - 2-4 years ago since 3 years ago, there was no NHL
). The REASON why I pose this question, is because I believe the Calgary Flames were BETTER 2 seasons ago (and also 4 years ago when the Flames went to the Cup), DESPITE the fact that they were more OFFENSIVELY CHALLENGED.
I think the above is an important point to consider:
-Basically, if I understand correctly, the Flames tried to improve their team by adding more offensive weapons....and playing a more "open style." As result, the Flames HAVE in fact, scored more goals the past few years, but have also regressed in my opinion.
Let's take a look at the Canucks (comparing this year to last year). Last year - the Canucks played an ultra-defensive style, played within their limits, and excelled as a result. This year? The Canucks deviated from that style and tried to "open things up" a little (ironically enough, their GF were lower this year than last). In the end - the Canucks regressed from last season.
I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that teams should be careful when making changes. Just because you are making changes, doesn't mean you are getting better. Furthermore - it's VERY important that you are not depleting strengths to fill weaknesses.
Calgary's MAJOR trump card a few years ago, was their unmatchable work ethic, their team defense, and toughness. By opting to play a more offensive style (and bringing in some more offensive players), I think all 3 of these qualities of the Calgary Flames were sacrificed to a certain extent......and it hurt them. I think an argument could have been made that if Calgary had PRESERVED their original strengths (and if anything, add even MORE to these already existing strengths), then they may have been even better the past 2 seasons....instead of regressing.
As it relates to the Canucks, we already have a world class goalie, and a very deep defense (provided that they are healthy).
Why not find a way to BUILD around these strengths?
I guess a large part of my annoyance (which has also lead to me making some absurd proposals these past few weeks
), is the fact that EVERYONE...a) Wants the Canucks to trade some of our defensive assets for help up front
b) Wants the Canucks to play a more offensive (open) style of game
without considering the fact that by doing this, there could be some negative ramifications.
Instead of depleting our defensive strength for offensive help (a potential zero sum game), why not PRESERVE our defensive strength....or dare I say, even ADD to that? (to the point that it becomes a suffocating strength....similar to New Jersey of yester-year).
Instead of wanting the Canucks to sign "big name offensive stars" (which in effect, would more than likely make our pitiful offense into just an AVERAGE one), why not focus on creating DEPTH up front?
Why not....
a) PRESERVE our defensive strength core...and if anything, ADD to it.
b) Focus on building 4 solid lines up front, instead of being pressured to bring in a SUPERSTAR right winger for the Sedin twins ($$$$$$$$$) or a SUPERSTAR center for Naslund if he returns ($$$$$$$$$$$).
By doing this, I believe that the Canucks may actually be BETTER......instead of being "different" (like the Calgary Flames for instance.....or how we are compared to the way we were 2 years ago).
Anyway - just my $0.02.
