Irving's Last Start as a Flame?

[Sakari]

Well, if we could have Chicago's 7th rounder playing in net, I think we'd be doing much better.

[FAN]

Irving was awesome in my viewings of him back in the WHL. Don't know what happened to his development but I have completely lost faith in him in ever becoming a #1 goaltender in the NHL. I know that he's still young, but his inability to dominate the AHL was a concern and I'm just not seeing #1 goaltender potential from him. With that said, I'm not ready to run him out of town. I still have faith that he can develop into a decent backup goalie in the NHL. But most likely he'll turn into an AHL journeyman.

Originally Posted by edn88

I think it is disrespectful to call a member of the Calgary Flames names, whether he is playing poorly or not.

And your point is?

[SuperMatt18]

People's biases are showing. Any of the 3 goals MacDonald let in would have been bad goals for Irving that he should have saved.

Perfect example is the first goal, Schwartz had the time to make three moves in front of the net yet it was soft on Irving.

People even call the second goal soft yet it was a one time shot from four feet out in the slot.

Yet MacDonald gets beat terribly in the 4th goal and let's in a goal at the worst time on the 5th goal and he is the second coming.

Another case of Flames fans hoping for a player to fail so they can say "I told you so".

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by edn88

I think it is disrespectful to call a member of the Calgary Flames names, whether he is playing poorly or not.

Welcome to the internet. You're going to love it here.

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Do you think this is true? I don't think the Flames covet MacDonald all that highly, if at all.

It was based on Feaster's comments (that they would have traded for him if available); that may have been a smoke screen as Irving wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire at the time (and still hasn't), but it seems clear they brought in MacDonald with the expectation that he would battle for playing time and the backup spot when Kipper returns.

Unless it's an issue that MacDonald isn't in shape yet to take on the #1 job, I have to believe he gets the next game (or two) to show what he can do for a full 60 minutes.

[TheChief]

You have to understand, Francis is a columnist for a newspaper. He doesn't get paid to write NHL.com game summary columns.

These columns are for general entertainment, and thought provoking insight (whether fans agree with it or not).

I cringe a bit when people jump on him for doing his job since 1994.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by TheChief

You have to understand, Francis is a columnist for a newspaper. He doesn't get paid to write NHL.com game summary columns.

These columns are for general entertainment, and thought provoking insight (whether fans agree with it or not).

I cringe a bit when people jump on him for doing his job since 1994.

You cringe when people jump on Eric Francis? If Eric offers an opinion people are entitled to debate them, just because he said it was Irvings last game as a Flame doesn't necessarily make it true.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by TheChief

You have to understand, Francis is a columnist for a newspaper. He doesn't get paid to write NHL.com game summary columns.

These columns are for general entertainment, and thought provoking insight (whether fans agree with it or not).

I cringe a bit when people jump on him for doing his job since 1994.

Thanks, Eric.

Regarding Irving - he has a half decent record. He looks like a capable back up and he is young. That's something the flames have been missing for a VERY long time. Why throw that under the bus when it has been a need for so long? Give him more game experience and time with malarchuk... He needs a chance to work with the kid as much as Irving needs a chance to prove his worth. Irving has worked damn hard for this club for a long time and deserves at least that much. Keep him in the system for another year and see how things play out between him and Ramo next year. MacDonald must have been brought in to help split games - kipper is probably gone for a lot longer than we had all hoped.

Edit: had to add that we've been spoiled by a healthy goalie who can carry the team on his back for the entire season for far too many seasons in a row. It is a complete luxury and expecting that out of anyone (kipper included) is not realistic. Cut Irving some slack and put more expectations on the rest of the team.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by TheChief

You have to understand, Francis is a columnist for a newspaper. He doesn't get paid to write NHL.com game summary columns.

These columns are for general entertainment, and thought provoking insight (whether fans agree with it or not).

I cringe a bit when people jump on him for doing his job since 1994.

If his job is to attract readership with sensationalistic tabloid style drivel, then yes, he's good at that. But "thought provoking insight" is a stretch if I ever heard one. He's been writing and talking like he's had a major bone to pick with the Flames for years and it's irritating and tiresome.

I'll take Warrener's bold but honest opinions over Francis' calculated and manufactured baloney any day.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

People's biases are showing. Any of the 3 goals MacDonald let in would have been bad goals for Irving that he should have saved.

Perfect example is the first goal, Schwartz had the time to make three moves in front of the net yet it was soft on Irving.

People even call the second goal soft yet it was a one time shot from four feet out in the slot.

Yet MacDonald gets beat terribly in the 4th goal and let's in a goal at the worst time on the 5th goal and he is the second coming.

Another case of Flames fans hoping for a player to fail so they can say "I told you so".

Who is hoping for Irving to fail? MAYBE Bertuzzied at most - and even then I bet he isn't hoping for Irving to fail.

And who cares if MacDonald is better or worse than Irving? MacDonald is at most a stop-gap. Before throwing him under the bus, I am hopeful whenever Hartley decides to give him a start, he runs with it. Why? Because I hope Flames get a goalie that does run with it!

I don't care if it is Irving, Taylor, MacDonald, another stop-gap waiver pickup/minor trade, or even if they sign Brust to an NHL deal. I just want ANYONE to come in and do a respectable job. I am not looking for a Kipper replacement, and thinking that any goalie who doesn't replace Kipper, is a failure. I just want a goalie back there that stops what he should stop, doesn't look all clumsy or shaky while doing so (so as to not rattle the team) and stops one that he shouldn't every few games to give the team some lift. Someone who is able to keep the GAA under 3 more often than not, but at least under 4 - just to give the team a chance to win.

As for Moon's comments - seriously? I want Taylor in net because he out-performed Irving for the past 2 seasons in a row - including THIS ONE. I don't expect him to be the next Jesus of Calgary. I expect him to be a bit better than Irving was - hopefully just a bit more steady. Why not? What is so ludicrous of this?

I can turn this around easily on you Moon and ask you why you are 'clamoring' to continue playing Irving when 29 other teams could have picked him up for free and didn't, why you want a goalie that has under-performed another goalie in the system for 2 straight years, and a goalie that has shown he is not ready to be in the NHL.

Seriously.. who the heck in these forums is 'clamoring' for Taylor? I just want a game or two ONLY to see if he can be a bit more steady. I guess that is clamoring for him. I only want that to happen after we see MacDonald in a couple games first. However, Irving will get some starts - unless he really starts to bomb worse than he has been, I expect him to get some starts for a while along with MacDonald. Flames are not going to give up on their 1st round pick yet, and want to see if he can improve or at least 'calm down' in net to see if he is worth signing next season.

[Cheese]

Im not Swiss and I have yet to play for the Flames!

[Rejean31]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Because Smith deflected it and it hit the top corner posts and in? Kipper couldn't save that.

If MacDonald would have stayed on his feet he would have stood a much better chance of stopping that shot. He was down on his knees the second the shot left Perron's stick.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

As for Moon's comments - seriously? I want Taylor in net because he out-performed Irving for the past 2 seasons in a row - including THIS ONE. I don't expect him to be the next Jesus of Calgary. I expect him to be a bit better than Irving was - hopefully just a bit more steady. Why not? What is so ludicrous of this?

Yes seriously.

The Flames did not sign him when they only had two guys under contract, did not sign him when he was free to sign with any other team in the league and did not sign him when he played "so well" in Abbotsford. They only signed him when they needed someone in an emergency and then got rid of him as soon as they could. It doesn't look like he is someone in their plans at all based on the way he has been treated by the Flames (and every other team in the league.)

I can turn this around easily on you Moon and ask you why you are 'clamoring' to continue playing Irving when 29 other teams could have picked him up for free and didn't, why you want a goalie that has under-performed another goalie in the system for 2 straight years, and a goalie that has shown he is not ready to be in the NHL.

I don't really care if Irving plays another game for the Flames or not just see him as the best option in net the Flames have right now. I don't particularly care who was the better AHL goalie. If Taylor was so much better in the AHL he can play in that league then. Irving's play in the NHL has been just fine for a back-up which at this point is what he is.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

People's biases are showing. Any of the 3 goals MacDonald let in would have been bad goals for Irving that he should have saved.

Perfect example is the first goal, Schwartz had the time to make three moves in front of the net yet it was soft on Irving.

People even call the second goal soft yet it was a one time shot from four feet out in the slot.

Yet MacDonald gets beat terribly in the 4th goal and let's in a goal at the worst time on the 5th goal and he is the second coming.

Another case of Flames fans hoping for a player to fail so they can say "I told you so".

I'd say it's more of a case of people wanting to throw away what is old and see what is new. I completely agree with everything you've said though.

Last night Irving didn't get pulled because he let in soft goals. He got pulled to send a message to the team, especially the defense.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by saillias

Send him down and call up Danny Taylor. Why not

Shameless tooting my own horn.

[Mike Vernon]

So I guess Francis was right. Game over for the Irv.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Mike Vernon

So I guess Francis was right. Game over for the Irv.

Seems way too early to say that.

[sun]

Can someone change the thread title? Terrible. At least add an apostrophe if you feel the need to denigrate our players.

[sun]

That was quick. Thanks, mods.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Im not Swiss and I have yet to play for the Flames!

...but your response was cheesy