Meh, good to have a bad game and have the score reflect that, as opposed to playing like that, and losing 3-1.
The "its not that we lose, its how we lose" will be a tainted statement this season; everyone expecting the Flames, if they don't win, to lose in unbelievable fashion like they did last weekend against Chicago, will have a rude awakening.
Irving played well, but that first goal from Schroerder on the tip that somehow went in and through him, was the end of the game basically.
Like it or not, teams that are struggling in a game need both the great saves he did make, but also not to see the ones that probably should be saved, go in.
That one doesn't go in, and it's 2-1 going into the third, the Flames may come out with a bit more confidence, both being down 1 goal not 2, and that their goalie is keeping them in it. Instead, they're down 2, at the end of a trip, the top line getting shut down and the goalie not looking completely confident.
Vancouver's a good shut down team. Last night, as most teams do, they focus on the Iginla line and force the Flames to beat them with another line. Once that top line gets shut down, its up to the second line of Hudler and Cervenka to step up and generate chances and get Vancouver to start worrying about them, too. With that line is adjusting to changing linemates with Backlund out, they were never a threat that Vancouver had to worry about re-allocating resources to, so the focus stayed on the only team that they figured could hurt them, the top line. Also, Vigneualt seemed to throw out the Sedin line when the 3rd or 4th line was out (as opposed to matching 3rd and 4th lines), at least in the 2nd (didn't see the third), and totally dominated the zone and possession.
Not a concern, outside of the re-enforcement that Kiprusoff has been taken for granted, and more timely, that the second line (or contributions from the third line) have to be ready to step up when good opponents are able to neutralize the top line.
Tomorrow should be another good test of that.
|