Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Most of this is anecdotal and a product of your own impressions. If you had hard numbers or quantitative indications to support your notions then I would be more inclined to agree. Whether or not the team's improvement was linear or achieved in groups of games doesn't really matter when all is said and done—
{snip}
|
If I had the time to develop hard numbers I'd be working for a team in the NHL instead of bashing away at people's taxes....(which I'm ignoring for today).
I suspect that my impressions could be borne out by stats, or by watching all 82 + 4 games again and seeing where issues arose. But most of those things I mentioned showed up one way or another in the last 4 games. And that is recent enough for everyone to recall.
As for development not being linear, that is true: but development needs to achieve a peak. And the time, in hockey, to peak and bring the development to the fore is in the playoffs. That did, most assuredly, NOT occur with this team.
They showed the same nervousness and fragility that they exhibited earlier in the season. They were unable to hold a lead (Game 3); they gave up early and soft goals (pick your game), they got hemmed in often and gave up possession, or couldn't recapture it (again, pick your game).
Chucky clearly got called off, Johnny looked terrified, Gio looked...and looked...and couldn't make quick plays. GG made dreadful coaching choices (no timeouts after dreadful goals, or before the 5-on-3, goaltender for Game 4).
Having said all of that, am I happy they MADE the playoffs? Sure. Off-season is a week shorter than last year. I guess that's a good thing. Did they improve dramatically enough for me to wholeheartedly endorse the coach/coaching staff? Not by a long shot.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And the proof of a hockey club in the NHL is in their playoff performance. And the Flames and their coach(es) were sadly lacking.