[PGT] Flames fall to Coyotes 4-0 - A whole lot of NOTHIN'

[1stLand]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

There seems to be a lot of worry these days about the Flames, there are a couple of things that need to be kept in mind:

1) It is early days yet, not even half the season has gone by. The time to worry is game 35;
2) The Flames are only 5 points out of 6th with 2 games in hand. If they win those two games and then they win the third game and the sixth place team loses the third game they are right back into 6th place and looking good;
3) Last nights 4-0 loss was exciting. I will take an exciting 4-0 loss over a boring 4-0 loss any day.

You forgot the Green Text

[Displaced Flames fan]

What a boring game. Least entertaining game I can remember in some time. No wonder nobody goes to Coyotes games.

I thought Taylor played pretty well until that 3rd goal. That was a killer and terrible. The 4th goal didn't matter, but it was weak as well.

On to the Kings. This is a team we are competing with at the bottom of the standings. Must win.

[vektor]

If we fall below .500 in our last 10 games played for more than 2 games I think it's time to start the rebuild finally

[DuffMan]

Phoenix is the new Minnesota. They should pay the fans to waste their time watching that crap.

[Poe969]

yet that "crap" is more successful than the flames.....

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Phoenix is the new Minnesota. They should pay the fans to waste their time watching that crap.

Pay their fans to come watch a cap floor team consistently win and make the playoffs?

[Komskies]

I don't know why I even bother watching Phoenix games. Sitting through that piece of crap was excruciating. The 75+ faceoffs certainly didn't help...

[Poe969]

because it's successful. The better question is: Why do I even bother watching the Flames? They don't seem to have a game plan at all and they only really give effort once in a while

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Poe969

because it's successful. The better question is: Why do I even bother watching the Flames? They don't seem to have a game plan at all and they only really give effort once in a while

The Flames are always exciting though, you never know what you are going to get. Some nights you get lots of goals and super entertaining hockey and the odd win, other nights you get a piss poor effort and no goals. That is way more exciting than consistent winning boring hockey.

The Flames are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get. And they play hockey like Forrest Gump lives life, confused, bewildered but you just cannot help but cheer for them at the end of the day.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by 868904

When they were on the same line, who took the most important faceoffs? Iginla or Jokinen? As for the rest of their defensive coverage, they are about a wash, both equally bad. That's why I'd rather have Iginla as a centre over Jokinen, at least he can win faceoffs on one side.

Not re-signing Jokinen was not a bad move by Feaster. Not getting a real two way centre who can win a faceoff or play in the defensive zone was a bad move. Even if Feaster went out and picked up another Matt Stajan type, it would have been better than committing to what the Jets gave Jokinen.

Olli was decent defensively. I understand completely that people aren't exactly nostalgic about his years as a Flame, but Brent taught him to play defense and he was able to go against top centers. I'm a little disappointed that we're pretending that he was bad defensively now - I guess that's supposed to make us feel better about the choices Feaster has made?

I don't particularly want him back either, but don't tell me he wouldn't help the team especially in a situation like this. Put him with Glencross again and at least you have a solid line even if they aren't magical with the puck.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Pay their fans to come watch a cap floor team consistently win and make the playoffs?

I tried cheering for them in the playoffs last year but just couldn't cheer for a team that was so boring, I needed to smoke bath salts just to watch them.

[868904]

Originally Posted by Henry Fool

Olli was decent defensively. I understand completely that people aren't exactly nostalgic about his years as a Flame, but Brent taught him to play defense and he was able to go against top centers. I'm a little disappointed that we're pretending that he was bad defensively now - I guess that's supposed to make us feel better about the choices Feaster has made?

I don't particularly want him back either, but don't tell me he wouldn't help the team especially in a situation like this. Put him with Glencross again and at least you have a solid line even if they aren't magical with the puck.

No honestly, I'd rather have Backlund taking Jokinen's ice and Horak too for that matter. If JOkinen were still here, Backlund gets relegated to the bottom 6 forwards again.

Backlund and Horak, both significantly smaller and weaker than Jokinen, are still better options at centre than Jokinen. They both play much better in the defensive end than Jokinen and both have hockey sense that Jokinen can only dream of.

He's currently playing with Evander Kane and has 6 points in 14 games and is minus 6??

I'm not exaggerating at all when I say i'm glad Feaster didn't re-sign Jokinen. Glencross's production is the same with or without Jokinen and Glencross is not a core player you build around anyways.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

Talent-wise the Flames are probably on par with a team like the Habs.

Something is missing.

Talent, cohesion, drive, passion, tenacity. Centre Depth, all-star goaltending, some size.

The Flames don't have a single player as good as Tomas Plekanec. Not a single one.

Originally Posted by zamler

That's what I thought last season.

Originally Posted by browna

Feaster's had over two calender years in charge of this team, no more playing of that card.

That's the proof, right there. 2 calendar years, no playoffs, no centres, no backup, retreads behind the bench, retreads in the bottom 6, retreads in the bottom pairing, no high-picks and no significant roster turnover.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

"The Moss"

Wouldn't it be nice to have a Moss-type player on the roster. I don't think it was a mistake not to re-sign him, but, it's a quality the team is lacking severely.

Originally Posted by kehatch

The age of the Flames best players had nothing to do with the loss. It is a concern for the near future because you would prefer your best players to be near or at their peak. And ours are regressing. But that isn't why we lost tonight. We lost because our best players didn't show any compete. You aren't going to beat the Coyotes when you aren't willing to work.

Given the importance of this game and our history of this crap this should be a serious red flag. But Feaster will probably keep applying bandaids instead of fixing the foundation.

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Remember when we used to rag on Darryl for bringing in veteran 'leaders'. Maybe he did know something we didn't...

He knew something we all should by now. The team is not getting the appropriate leadership and constantly needs players with pride brought in from outside the organization to improve that leadership.

Originally Posted by 868904

Tippet is one lucky guy that he didn't end up coaching this core. He'd be coaching in the WHL now if he did. There is absolutely no way in hell, he could have gotten the forward group we've had for the past 4 years to back check like he has gotten in Phoenix.

100%. This is likely Hartley's last stop in the NHL as well (except for a stint in Montreal of QC if they get a team).

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Well Brent was the coach that tried to get them to play together. It didn't work and Hartley's up tempo style won't work either. It's not the coaches it's the players like Iginla and Tanguay in particular that play like individuals.

Positive side is that this is a good season to be bad. Can hopefully cut ties with Iginla and have a new captain next season and a somewhat fresh start for this franchise.

I am now resigned to the fact that Iginla will be in a Flames sweater for the next 3 years.

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I think the most frustrating part of this season so far is the fact that we have three guys 23 years old or younger, who should be full timers on this roster, all on the IR.....and then we call up another guy in the same age group and he suffers a broken hand after playing two freakin minutes.

At least Brodie and Horak are still on the roster and looking pretty good, especially Brodie.

Would take some of the sting of being sub 500 away if Backlund and Sven were playing a lot and putting up decent numbers, and Bouma was solidly filling out a bottom six role providing youth and energy.

Better send Horak to the minors and make Brodie a healthy scratch. Can't have their work ethic and desire make the tired old vets look bad.

Watching Horak/Backlund/Sven on the ice and watching Iginla/TanguayGlencross...it's like they are playing different sports. In one sport, you skate really hard, you skate at a defender and force him to commit to you and try to expose him with your hard-skating in your face style, or work the puck over to a teammate who is open because of your hard work on the puck. In the other sport, you go off-side after receiving a pass as you break into the offensive zone because you've decided to double clutch, stop skating and 'slow the game down.'

I'd find it disgraceful if it wasn't so pitiful.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I am now resigned to the fact that Iginla will be in a Flames sweater for the next 3 years.

.

This is the saddest part of your entire post, all I can say is don't stop believing, hold on to that feeling. One day, maybe, by the grace of god (this coming from a devout atheist) the Flames will do what is right for the Calgary Flames.

[tendulkar23]

I think the argument for the team being inconsistent is unfounded. If the Flames are inconsistent, every team that we play against is inconsistent. If the Flames are playing well for 40 minutes, it can be concluded that they are playing poor hockey for the other 20 minutes. This means that the opposing team is playing poorly for 40 minutes and playing well for 20 minutes.

The consistency argument is over-exaggerated. No team in hockey dominates play for 60 minutes. Even Columbus will have a handful of good shifts against Chicago.

I think where the Flames fail is their unchanging game plan. It seems as though they play the same way against every opponent. I don't think they can beat the Coyotes playing the uptempo style they have played all season.

I feel that the problem the Flames are having is their consistent play. They refuse to make adjustments and change their tempo and style of play from game to game. The Coyotes forwards were content with setting up camp in the neutral zone and picking off stretch passes. In that case the Flames forwards need to hang back and advance the puck with short passes as a team. The stretch passes work well against overly aggressive teams like Chicago or Edmonton.

I don't think consistency is something that is very valuable in sports. The ability to change from game to game and exploit the oppositions weaknesses is what the Flames should strive for. There is a reason that we've lost to Minnesota and Phoenix.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by 868904

No honestly, I'd rather have Backlund taking Jokinen's ice and Horak too for that matter. If JOkinen were still here, Backlund gets relegated to the bottom 6 forwards again.

Backlund and Horak, both significantly smaller and weaker than Jokinen, are still better options at centre than Jokinen. They both play much better in the defensive end than Jokinen and both have hockey sense that Jokinen can only dream of.

He's currently playing with Evander Kane and has 6 points in 14 games and is minus 6??

I'm not exaggerating at all when I say i'm glad Feaster didn't re-sign Jokinen. Glencross's production is the same with or without Jokinen and Glencross is not a core player you build around anyways.

My main issue was your calling him bad defensively, which wasn't true at all. I also think that he could provide some of the push that they're missing right now, especially against teams like Phoenix that don't allow you to get cute with the puck. I haven't compared the offensive numbers but in my view playing with him did make Glencross a more solid, dependable player.

They went into the season without proper NHL centers. That's the issue. I have no problem with playing the youngsters so long as you don't pretend that you're supposed to be in a playoff hunt and therefore can't change any core players. As it is, letting Jokinen go was just a cosmetic move. It didn't make the team better but it gave the false impression that the team is moving forward.

[Jordan!]

Originally Posted by troutman

I think the biggest problem with NHL entertainment today is over-size goalie equipment. Big goalies like Smith an Luongo can kneel in the butterfly all night, and you aren't going to score when you can't get rebounds and odd man rushes.

The bigger the goalie, the smaller the pads? what? lol

[868904]

Originally Posted by Henry Fool

My main issue was your calling him bad defensively, which wasn't true at all. I also think that he could provide some of the push that they're missing right now, especially against teams like Phoenix that don't allow you to get cute with the puck. I haven't compared the offensive numbers but in my view playing with him did make Glencross a more solid, dependable player.

They went into the season without proper NHL centers. That's the issue. I have no problem with playing the youngsters so long as you don't pretend that you're supposed to be in a playoff hunt and therefore can't change any core players. As it is, letting Jokinen go was just a cosmetic move. It didn't make the team better but it gave the false impression that the team is moving forward.

You know what, maybe for a $2 million per year on a one year contract, MAYBE, but what did he end up signing for? I don't think Feaster did wrong to let that contract go. I'd rather the Flames suck than get tagged for another 2 years at $4.5 million per year with Jokinen.

I think we are in agreement that Feaster failed to address a pressing issue and that is to shore up the centre position, and we both seem to agree that it wasn't even about getting a "no. 1 centremen".

For instance, a guy like Antoine Vermette was acquired essentially for a 2nd round pick last year. He's not a "no. 1 centre", but he would have definitely helped and guess who picked him up? I know, we didn't have any 2nd rounders to give up, then I guess you have to question whether Feaster made the right decision to shore up the wing with Cammalleri or to strengthen the middle with Vermette. Yes I know getting rid of Bourque was part of the Cammy deal, but at that stage, it sounded like Gautheir wanted Cammy gone as bad as we wanted Bourque gone. It's just little moves like this that Feaster is failing at. It's not always about the big splash when it comes to trades.

[Henry Fool]

Originally Posted by 868904

You know what, maybe for a $2 million per year on a one year contract, MAYBE, but what did he end up signing for? I don't think Feaster did wrong to let that contract go. I'd rather the Flames suck than get tagged for another 2 years at $4.5 million per year with Jokinen.

I think we are in agreement that Feaster failed to address a pressing issue and that is to shore up the centre position, and we both seem to agree that it wasn't even about getting a "no. 1 centremen".

For instance, a guy like Antoine Vermette was acquired essentially for a 2nd round pick last year. He's not a "no. 1 centre", but he would have definitely helped and guess who picked him up? I know, we didn't have any 2nd rounders to give up, then I guess you have to question whether Feaster made the right decision to shore up the wing with Cammalleri or to strengthen the middle with Vermette. Yes I know getting rid of Bourque was part of the Cammy deal, but at that stage, it sounded like Gautheir wanted Cammy gone as bad as we wanted Bourque gone. It's just little moves like this that Feaster is failing at. It's not always about the big splash when it comes to trades.

Sure. I don't want to speculate what Olli would have been willing to sign for. I know he wanted to stay and Winnipeg possibly represents the highest offer he was given as an UFA. Impossible to say, but I don't fully trust Feaster on this either. They sold us the idea that Cervenka was supposed to be the replacement, but when the season started they simply said that they can't possibly play him as a center - as if they only scouted him AFTER they signed him and saw that he wouldn't be able to do it. So I think there has been some dishonesty from the management regarding the situation the team is in, whether it's intellectual dishonesty or PR related dishonesty.

[Teroy]

Says it all:

Jarome Iginla, Michael Cammalleri, Alex Tanguay — were each minus-two. That unit’s total contribution to the attack was two shots.