Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Really? His own words from this very page. "What can be argued is the conclusion ... Flames were unlucky and I'm fine with that."
Again, really? The Flames were just unlucky last season? It had nothing to do with a faulty system that was both predictable and flawed in its design? Bad luck played a larger role in the Flames messing the bed last year than a garbage system that saw pretty much the whole team have a horrible shooting percentage? That is where the ridiculousness of the suggestion comes in. What's the old adage? Teams make their luck. The Flames under Gulutzan played a very suspect game all season long, and had the bad stats indicative of a bad system, That wasn't luck, that was expected.
No change. The system was faulty and relied on trying to get a lot of shots on the net, a majority of them poor scoring opportunities. The Flames don't need more time with the puck, they need to get better shots on goal and from better scoring areas. Shooting from the slot right into a defenseman or the goaltender's chest counts as a danger zone opportunity on net, but if the shot is into major traffic because the opposition has collapsed into a defensive shell the shot quality is still garbage. They Flames generated a lot of shots, but they weren't good shots, even from home plate. The eye test proved that.
Where's the salacious insult in what I said? That saying the whole season can be distilled down to bad luck is a ridiculous belief? Come on, where's the Bingo that used to mock Oiler fans for saying the same thing, and then trotting out Corsi stats to support their belief? That wasn't an insult then, and its not an insult now. It's a statement of the obvious. A team is not unlucky for a whole season. They just have a bad system or suck at the game of hockey.
You stated it was luck. If you would like to apply a qualifier now that is fine by me. But you did state, "What can be argued is the conclusion ... Flames were unlucky and I'm fine with that."
That is different than suggesting the Flames were just unlucky. I would agree with what you said above, especially if you applied the blame where it obviously belonged - on the system that caused the abysmal shot stats. Those stats, and every stat in creation, were indicative of a horrible system and the players struggling to try and find success in that system. It definitely wasn't luck.
|
The statement "Flames were unlucky" isn't the same as "luck is 100% to blame for the Flames misfortunes last season"
You can keep trying to make that the case but it won't stick. I don't know why you keep attempting to make it so. Pretty weak attempt at winning an argument you likely shouldn't have started in the first place.
I said his deployment was an issue, I talked about his break out being D to D too often, and pointed to a study that said they didn't forecheck at all. That's hardly saying 100% luck, but why get in the way of a good rant right?
Luck played a role, the numbers say as much, and that's all I've ever said.
The salacious insult is to take someone that actually digs deep into things, writes 3000 words of copy on what he finds, but compare it to closet infantile Oiler fans that count on luck being the issue every summer. This Bingo is here and healthy don't worry buddy.