Calgary Flames

Calgary Flames second round offensive report cards

It’s no secret that the Calgary Flames season didn’t end as expected. The team went crashing out of the second round in a 4–1 drubbing at the hands of their biggest rivals the Edmonton Oilers. In an embarrassing display, just about everything that could’ve gone wrong for the Flames did.

The Flames struggled to find their offensive game after Game 1, and as such their offensive report cards reflect that. After a tight checking first round series, the second round was wide open and some major players on the Flames squad struggled mightily.

Let’s take a look at how each player graded out in Round 2.

How do these rankings work?

A reminder that these rankings are based on a model that evaluates 5v5 play. In order to grade players, we will be using the TWC Player Offensive Evaluation Tool (POET).

The model operates similarly to the power rankings model we update on a weekly basis. The player model takes specific on-ice statistics including CF% at various danger levels, xGF%; individual statistics including goals, assists, offensive contributions, and penalty differentials; and includes an adjustment for time on ice, PDO, and offensive zone starts.

Each player’s statistics are put through the model and combined to produce an overall TWCScore. These scores are then compared to the rest of the league to determine what letter grade they fall into. If their TWC score is above 0 on their player cards then they are above average compared to all other players of the same position (forwards or defencemen).

For the playoffs, players are only evaluated per series. The report cards therefore only compare each Flames skater to other Flames and Oilers, and not players on other teams.

It is important to note that the model is based on player performance at 5v5. This is not meant to diminish the efforts of the Flames work on special teams, but to be more representative of a players form against equal opposition. All numbers are courtesy of Let’s see who ranks where on the Flames squad.



Andrew Mangiapane

Despite suffering from an apparent wrist injury, Andrew Mangiapane was still one of the Flames’ best forwards in this series due to his strong two-way play.

Mangiapane led all Flames forwards in CF%, xGF%, and HDCF% with a wild 84%. His xGA/60 was also first. Needless to say the Flames controlled play with him on the ice all series.

His four even strength points were all tied for first on the team among forwards, with his two goals tied for first as well.

Blake Coleman

You’ll notice a trend at the top of these forward grades, as it’s all members of the same line. Blake Coleman showed why the Flames signed him in the playoffs, as he was solid even when the Flames struggled.

He ranked top three for CF%, xGF% and HDCF% sitting behind only his line mates. He also sat third for xGA/60.

Offensively Coleman produced four points at even strength and two goals, both tied for first with the rest of his line.

Mikael Backlund

Mikael Backlund really turned back the clock in this series as he looked like the version of himself that earned Selke votes back in the day. His line was great for most of the series, and lots of the credit goes to him.

Like his two linemates, Backlund ranked top three for CF%, xGF%, and HDCF%. He was also tied for first for xGA/60 with Mangiapane.

Just as Coleman and Mangiapane did, Backlund also produced four points and two goals at even strength both of which ranked tied for first. Now if only we could figure out why his line wasn’t matched up against Connor McDavid.


Brett Ritchie

Brett Ritchie barely played in this series, averaging just under eight minutes at 5v5 a game, but when he was on the ice he was surprisingly okay.

Ritchie ranked fourth for CF%, xGF%, and HDCF% behind only the Backlund line in each metric.

When it comes to offence, Ritchie totalled just two points at even strength. However when put up against the rest of the Flames roster the two points was tied for third among forwards. His two even strength goals were tied for first.

Johnny Gaudreau

Arguably the Flames’ MVP in Round 1, Johnny Gaudreau took a step back in Roung 2. That said, it’s not all his fault as his line was tasked with defending McDavid all series.

Gaudreau ranked eighth or ninth for CF%, xGF%, and HDCF% as his line was crushed for most of the series by the Oilers top unit. He did rank third for CF/60 and xGF/60 however so it wasn’t all bad news.

Offensively Gaudreau produced just one goal and three points at 5v5, which is well below expectation but again when put up against the rest of the Flames forwards it was decent. His 19 5v5 shots also led the team.

Now it’s time to sign Gaudreau.


Calle Jarnkrok

It just never worked out for Calle Jarnkrok in Calgary, with his one and only goal coming in the last game of the season for the team.

There’s not much to say about Jarnkrok’s numbers as he was average across the board as seen on his POET card. His shot generation however was very poor, as he picked up just six shots at 5v5 across five games.

On offense he registered one goal and three points at 5v5, good to tie for second among the Flames forward group.

Jarnkrok most likely won’t be back with the Flames next year unless the players want him to be around for locker room chemistry, but at least he finally got on the scoresheet before the end of the season.

Matthew Tkachuk

It was revealed after the season ended for the Flames that Matthew Tkachuk was dealing with a hand injury, which comes as no surprise as he wasn’t himself for most of the playoffs.

Tkachuk did rank fifth for both CF% and xGF%, however he sat 10th for GF%. On a positive note he ranked first for CF/60 and xGF/60. Unfortunately after Game 1 he couldn’t turn any of that into actual results.

Tkachuk put up just one goal and one assist for two points at 5v5 in this series, with the goal coming in Game 1. For a 100-point forward, it simply wasn’t anywhere close to enough.

Elias Lindholm

Like the rest of the Flames top line, Elias Lindholm wasn’t great in the second round as he was stuck defending McDavid most shifts.

Lindholm did rank second among Flames forwards for xGF/60, however he also ranked last for xGA/60 as his line was constantly stuck in track meet shifts against McDavid.

Offensively Lindholm was dreadful, posting just one goal and no assists at 5v5 across the five games. When your first line centre has one 5v5 points in a series, you’re doomed.

Dillon Dube

DillonDube struggled to produce most of the season, and those struggles continued in a big way in the second round.

Dube’s underlying numbers were mediocre across the board, as he ranked outside the top six Flames forwards in most metrics.

What he really struggled with is producing any sort of offence. Dube didn’t post a single 5v5 goal all series, and registered just one single assist at 5v5 in the five games. Not good enough from one of the team’s more important depth players.

Tyler Toffoli

What seemed like the Flames best deadline acquisition in years turned out to be a massive failure come playoff time as Tyler Toffoli didn’t do much of anything all postseason.

Toffoli did rank top six among Flames forwards for both xGF% and HDCF%, which kept his grade up. It’s his lack of scoring that tanked his grade. Toffoli didn’t manage a single point at 5v5 all series, and posted just five 5v5 shots.

Offensively, he was one of the team’s worst forwards as he was one of only two to not register a point at 5v5 in the series.


Trevor Lewis

The Flames’ fourth line got caved in this series, although it’s not all their fault. With Sutter rolling four lines for most of the series, Trevor Lewis was out there against McDavid and co. which should never happen.

Lewis posted the worst CF%, xGF%, and HDCF% among all Flames forwards. His xGF% was just 39% while his HDCF% was just 29%. His xGF/60 was also worst on the team.

Somehow Lewis managed two assists at 5v5 at least. Regardless he was terrible this series and earned the F grade.

Milan Lucic

Milan Lucic sits in essentially the same spot as Lewis. A fourth line player who struggled in minutes against top-end talent as expected.

Lucic ranked second last among Flames forwards for CF%, xGF%, and HDCF% ahead of only Lewis. Similarly, his xGF/60 also ranked second last ahead of only Lewis.

Lucic didn’t register a single 5v5 point in five games, and put up just one single shot at 5v5 in 43:10 minutes of ice time.



Michael Stone

Michael Stone? Yes Michael Stone. The Flames’ seventh defenceman for much of the season stepped up in a big way in Round 2 with Chris Tanev out with an injury for most of the series.

Stone led all Flames defencemen in CF% and ranked second in xGF%. His sample size was smaller, but his numbers were still impressive

Offensively Stone registered two points at 5v5 in the series which still ranked second on the Flames blueline. All said, Stone provided much more than anyone could’ve expected.

Rasmus Andersson

Rasmus Andersson wasn’t great in this series, however since these are offensive report cards he grades out decent compared to other defencemen in the series.

Andersson ranked third on the Flames blueline for CF% and xGF%, and second for HDCF%. He also ranked second for CF/60 behind only Stone and first for xGF/60 and HDCF/60.

In terms of offensive production, Andersson’s three points at 5v5 were tops among all Flames blueliners, which earned him such a high grade.


Oliver Kylington

Oliver Kylington was clearly playing hurt in this series, and his play suffered as a result. That said, his offensive totals were still among some of the better ones in the series.

Kylington’s underlying numbers don’t really stand out, as he was fairly average across the board compared to his teammates. However his point totals are what earned him a high grade.

Kylington’s two 5v5 points were tied for second on the team for defencemen, and his one 5v5 goal was tied for first. He wasn’t great in this series, but his offensive production was still better than most of the Flames blueline.

Noah Hanifin

Like Andersson, Noah Hanifin struggled on the defensive side of the puck in this series. Good thing for him these are only offensive report cards.

Hanifin ranked top four on the Flames blueline for CF%, xGF%, and HDCF%. His HDCF/60 also ranked second.

Hanifin registered just one point at 5v5, however his nine 5v5 shots were first on the team among defencemen. Again not great numbers, but when compared to the rest of the team they were still okay.


Nikita Zadorov

Nikita Zadorov is never one to put up good offensive numbers, and that continued in this series.

Zadorov did rank second for CF% and first for xGF%. When he’s tops for xGF% on your blueline, that’s not a good sign.

He only put up one single point in the series at 5v5, an assist. That said he managed to get 13 shots on net at 5v5 and also led all Flames defencemen by a wide margin with 25 iCF.

Chris Tanev

Chris Tanev was playing at well below 50%, played in just two games, and is not an offensive player. The fact he still graded out with a C is mighty impressive.

Although it was a small sample size, Tanev sat with a 71% HDCF% in his two games, which was by far the best total on the team.

Tanev played in just two games in this series , yet still put up as many points as three other Flames defencemen. That said, he didn’t manage a single shot at 5v5. Regardless, he deserves a ton of credit for even playing. He will gladly spend the offseason healing up.


Erik Gudbranson

Erik Gudbranson was very average across the board offensively in this series, as he looked very much like a fringe NHL defenceman.

Gudbranson was second last for CF%, third last for xGF%, and last for HDCF%.

On offence he put up one single assist along with just three shots at 5v5. His eight iCF and three shots were both worst among Flames defencemen who played all five games.

Learning from the series

The Flames have a lot to look back at and be proud of, but just looking at these report cards gives them a clear indication of what they need to do as a team to be better. While injuries impacted production, there were decisions that weren’t made that could have led to the series going the distance of seven games.

For the Flames, they spent too much time focusing on playing against the Oilers and not enough time focusing on making the Oilers play against them.

Each player’s report card shows that things could have gone better in the second round, but the Flames can and will learn from this and continue to get better. After all, report cards are meant to show areas of improvement anyway.

Photo by Brett Holmes/Icon Sportswire

Back to top button