I wish they had proper video on that, instead of the security camera.
Still, it looks like Scrivens was set for the face-off, and just effed it up. Maybe the puck short-hopped on it's edge and fooled him, but I guess we'll never know.
This. It's why Irving should be given more ice time. He's shown to some extant that he can handle the NHL pressure.
Yea... I don't know about that. People seem to forget he went 1-6 last year and had a GGA north of 3.
Just as capable as Henrik Karlson would also went 1-6 with a GGA north of 3.
Based on the results, I really believe Ward is putting in the best goalie every game. And its just not Irving. But I mean, how the hell do you outshine the performances that Brust and Taylor have been giving?
G Danny Taylor: 4-2-1, 1.69 GAA, 1 SO
D Steve McCarthy: 9 points, +8
F Dustin Sylvester: 8 points, +4, 2 GWG
F Brett Olson: 6 points, +5
I know it was only one game but I was not impressed with McCarthy in the sportsnet OKC game. I thought he was slow both physically and in reacting to the quick oiler forwards.
Given the lack of contract space, the flames should not be handing out contracts to mediocre AHL guys. Better to save the space for younger and higher profile college free agents later.
At this point, I'd rather see Breen get regular call ups than signing a guy like McCarthy. I'd rather live with the rookie gaffs of Breen and bet on his potential then sign a guy who has already plateaued.
__________________
Calgary Flames, PLEASE GO TO THE NET! AND SHOOT THE PUCK! GENERATING OFFENSE IS NOT DIFFICULT! SKATE HARD, SHOOT HARD, CRASH THE NET HARD!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 868904 For This Useful Post:
Yea... I don't know about that. People seem to forget he went 1-6 last year and had a GGA north of 3.
Just as capable as Henrik Karlson would also went 1-6 with a GGA north of 3.
Based on the results, I really believe Ward is putting in the best goalie every game. And its just not Irving. But I mean, how the hell do you outshine the performances that Brust and Taylor have been giving?
I would argue that he was actually 1-3-3 and while his GAA was north of 3 that he faced an average of 34 shots against per game and the only reason his GAA is north of 3 was the Bruins debacle which destroyed his stats and anyone who watched that game know Irving was not the biggest problem that game (he was not good either though).
Without that Bruins game Irving was still an underwhelming 1-2-3, but his GAA would have been 2.43 and his Save Percentage would have been .932. Irving only had 1 poor game during his call-ups, statistically speaking his final game against Edmonton was not great but he actually played pretty well in it too.
Irving was also a star in 2 of his 7 games and if you ask me he should have been in the Senators game where he made 45 saves and in the Coyotes game where he made 33 saves in a 2-1 overtime loss, but somehow the Coyotes media determined they deserved all 3 stars.
At worst you can say Irving was bad in 2 of his 7 starts. And he gave us a chance to win in 5 of his 7 games. All you can realistically ask from your backup goaltender is to give you a chance to win, Irving did that and then some.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Alberta_Beef For This Useful Post:
I know it was only one game but I was not impressed with McCarthy in the sportsnet OKC game. I thought he was slow both physically and in reacting to the quick oiler forwards.
Given the lack of contract space, the flames should not be handing out contracts to mediocre AHL guys. Better to save the space for younger and higher profile college free agents later.
At this point, I'd rather see Breen get regular call ups than signing a guy like McCarthy. I'd rather live with the rookie gaffs of Breen and bet on his potential then sign a guy who has already plateaued.
McCarthy's weakness is definitely his footspeed. It's the reason why he's been a tweener. I'd be surprised if the Flames signed him to an NHL deal. Agree on giving Breen a chance over McCarthy if it came to that.
I would argue that he was actually 1-3-3 and while his GAA was north of 3 that he faced an average of 34 shots against per game and the only reason his GAA is north of 3 was the Bruins debacle which destroyed his stats and anyone who watched that game know Irving was not the biggest problem that game (he was not good either though).
Without that Bruins game Irving was still an underwhelming 1-2-3, but his GAA would have been 2.43 and his Save Percentage would have been .932. Irving only had 1 poor game during his call-ups, statistically speaking his final game against Edmonton was not great but he actually played pretty well in it too.
Irving was also a star in 2 of his 7 games and if you ask me he should have been in the Senators game where he made 45 saves and in the Coyotes game where he made 33 saves in a 2-1 overtime loss, but somehow the Coyotes media determined they deserved all 3 stars.
At worst you can say Irving was bad in 2 of his 7 starts. And he gave us a chance to win in 5 of his 7 games. All you can realistically ask from your backup goaltender is to give you a chance to win, Irving did that and then some.
Ok... Or you can take a revisionist history stance. Unfortunately he DID get blown out in Boston, so that's on his stat line. He DID let in those OT goals when we needed him to stop them. And you already disproved your star argument by demonstrating how entirely subjective it is.
Take off the rose coloured glasses. He did no better than Karlsson or McElhinney before him. Karlsson stopped a bunch of pucks and lost games, same with McElhinney. At the end of the day, it's the Ws that bring home the bacon.
Ok... Or you can take a revisionist history stance. Unfortunately he DID get blown out in Boston, so that's on his stat line. He DID let in those OT goals when we needed him to stop them. And you already disproved your star argument by demonstrating how entirely subjective it is.
Take off the rose coloured glasses. He did no better than Karlsson or McElhinney before him. Karlsson stopped a bunch of pucks and lost games, same with McElhinney. At the end of the day, it's the Ws that bring home the bacon.
if you think he did no better than Karlsson or McElhinney you clearly never watched the games. At least he gave us a chance to win, which is not something either of those 2 did.
The Following User Says Thank You to Alberta_Beef For This Useful Post:
Ok... Or you can take a revisionist history stance. Unfortunately he DID get blown out in Boston, so that's on his stat line. He DID let in those OT goals when we needed him to stop them. And you already disproved your star argument by demonstrating how entirely subjective it is.
That was the team's worst performance all year. He has to live with it in his current stat line. However, since a pretty rare outlier happened to fall in his small sample of games, it makes perfect sense to discount when trying accurately project his abilities. We don't have to ignore that game ever happened. We just think in the future it won't happen as often as once in every seven games.
Quote:
Take off the rose coloured glasses. He did no better than Karlsson or McElhinney before him. Karlsson stopped a bunch of pucks and lost games, same with McElhinney. At the end of the day, it's the Ws that bring home the bacon.
Even counting the Boston game Irving's NHL save percentage is still better than both of the other guys. Irving faced significantly more shots than the Flames gave up on average, and in fact he saw more rubber than any team averaged on the season. Yes, wins matter a lot. Yes, Irving still has a lot to prove. However, if you just want to shove a guy with 7 games of NHL experience in the same category as other guys based solely on winning percentage, then I would suggest that is a severely flawed stance. If you really want to dwell on one stat for a goalie, at least use save percentage.
Last edited by Stampede2TheCup; 11-16-2012 at 01:58 AM.
