Anyone notice that at the post game press conference Hartley, despite being in the pressure of a playoff race, took time to welcome a young Flames fan - Austin - who is fighting with a brain tumour. The first few seconds and last few seconds of this clip are priceless. Class all the way Coach!
Calgary Flames @NHLFlames · 10m 10 minutes ago
Bob Hartley introduced a special guest during his post-game press conference last night ~ http://cflam.es/1BJPz2w
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to Gaudfather For This Useful Post:
It seems as though these past few games the Flames get hemmed in their own zone an awful lot and look disorganized and panicky (or maybe it is just me that is panicking). This is where the Giordano factor is missing the most.
Somehow they are still getting it done though, so hopefully the trend continues.
It seems as though these past few games the Flames get hemmed in their own zone an awful lot and look disorganized and panicky (or maybe it is just me that is panicking). This is where the Giordano factor is missing the most.
Somehow they are still getting it done though, so hopefully the trend continues.
IMO, they've had a "hemmed in" issue all year, but before it was often the bottom pairing and/or the 4th line. Stajan's line has picked it up now and the bottom pairing is better (Schlemko/Diaz seem like a better pair).
It was Monahan's line hemmed in as often as not last night. The Avs just happen to have some good offensive players who can cycle pretty well. But the Flames had their moments of keeping the play in the Avs end too.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
It seems as though these past few games the Flames get hemmed in their own zone an awful lot and look disorganized and panicky (or maybe it is just me that is panicking). This is where the Giordano factor is missing the most.
Somehow they are still getting it done though, so hopefully the trend continues.
I've noticed this and wonder if they are being coached to avoid taking the body or they just don't have the size. We appear to give opposing teams a lot of room to work in our end. Teams with elite passing skills could be a big issue for us in the play-offs.
You are drastically underrating Engelland. I agree he's a 3rd pairing guy, and he's a physical defensive specialist, not a puck mover, but he is much better than Cory Sarich was near the end of his tenure here playing a similar role.
I don't think I'm drastically underrating Engelland at all. This is what he was in Pittsburgh, and the league is only getting faster and more agile since his time there. He's still capable of being a defenseman at the NHL level, but there's a reason that the league is moving away from 1-dimensional players in every position. There's a reason player's like Douglas Murray and Scott Hannan are having trouble finding work. Engelland is probably on par or worse than either of those players. Most teams don't have big, physical, defenders who can't skate, can't handle the puck, and have poor hockey IQ. If you're big and physical, you better still be able to play the rest of the game otherwise you're useless.
Quote:
Agreed, he's out of his element being promoted to 2nd pair with Brodie, especiall when it's kind of a 1B pair. Hartley has relied on Wide's and Russell as top pair, but he's still using Engelland and Brodie in situations he likely wouldn't if we had our true number 1 pairing. I don't think this fan base should sell short that part of the reason we aren't missing Gio AS MUCH as we might have thought is for sure the stellar step up by Wideman and Russell, but also Engelland.
I would argue that Russell and Wideman are playing by far their best hockey of the season, and possibly their careers, at the moment. That goes a long way to making up for Gio's loss. Brodie has actually been quite inconsistent without his partner, so I don't know how much of a net positive effect Engelland has been on him, despite the fact that Engelland's handled more minutes and tougher opposition. What's really been good has been the play of the 3rd pairing, which was already better with Diaz in on a regular basis, but Schlemko has also stabilized that 3rd pairing despite a mental lapse now and then and learning a new system on the fly.
Quote:
Engelland is a good 3rd pairing guy on any team in this league IMO, not just a 7. Problem in Calgary early on was he was paired with Smid, who is also a good 3rd pairing guy, but too similar game style to Engelland. They both have the same strengths and weaknesses, which is why, both of those guys actually work better with Diaz on that pairing, even though Diaz isn't actually as good as either IMO as an overall player, he's just a more complimentary guy to both of them.
Last year Smid was heralded as an unsung hero most nights and a warrior that could play on the 2nd pairing at times, but was probably better suited to the 3rd. This year he struggled at times, but I think most of it had to do with playing alongside Engelland who has looked downright terrible throughout the first half of the year. Simple things like taking his man shouldn't be lost on a defensive specialist like Engelland. The problem is, he's not a defensive specialist. He's a rough and tumble 3rd pairing defenseman who can drop the gloves, and he basically took the place of SOB on our team who was also terrible. I would like to have seen Smid get more time with Diaz once he got rolling, but unfortunately he was injured before we got to see that, and we'll never know if Engelland was truly the one responsible for bringing down that pairing.
Honestly, if you're telling me he should be a regular on the 3rd pairing, then we've been watching 2 different players all year long. He's just not that good and he's been forced to play above his head for much of this year, because we don't have the depth on defense. Based on his play, any other team would have regularly scratched him, and possibly sent him to the minors. My only hope is that he can maintain some consistent play going forward, otherwise we'll have to buy out part of his contract.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
Engelland's fine at clearing the net, taking the body and fighting along the boards. But he has a huge problem when he gets the puck in his own end, even with plenty time. He either throws it up the boards, often intercepted or into a scrum where it is turned over. Or he eats it, and loses it down low. He couldn't seem to make an exit pass or even dump it out (unless he iced it).
One reason he's played better is that Brodie has made sure he makes himself available for a chip behind the net to give Engelland another outlet. I don't think Diaz was doing that.
What was the offside call that the linesman missed that a lot of guys are talking about?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Flames were in the offensive zone, puck chipped towards blue line very slowly (essentially had stopped right in the middle of the line) when a D (Wideman?) shot it back into the zone. The linesman was standing directly in front of the slow motion play, staring at it, and called it offside. Dome booed. I booed. Lines and refs are different, but just added to the bad rep the stripes were earning that game.
The Following User Says Thank You to PugnaciousIntern For This Useful Post:
Flames were in the offensive zone, puck chipped towards blue line very slowly (essentially had stopped right in the middle of the line) when a D (Wideman?) shot it back into the zone. The linesman was standing directly in front of the slow motion play, staring at it, and called it offside. Dome booed. I booed. Lines and refs are different, but just added to the bad rep the stripes were earning that game.
Ya I remember that play but didn't the replay show that a quarter of the puck went past the blueline? What is the ruling on this type of play? Does the whole puck have to cross the line to be considered offside or if just a portion of the puck crosses the line?
Ya I remember that play but didn't the replay show that a quarter of the puck went past the blueline? What is the ruling on this type of play? Does the whole puck have to cross the line to be considered offside or if just a portion of the puck crosses the line?
Whole puck has to exit.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
Ya I remember that play but didn't the replay show that a quarter of the puck went past the blueline? What is the ruling on this type of play? Does the whole puck have to cross the line to be considered offside or if just a portion of the puck crosses the line?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Whole puck has to exit.
Just like the whole puck has to cross the goalline for a goal.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to heep223 For This Useful Post:
Location: F*** me. We're so f***ing good, you check the f***ing standings? Lets f***ing go! F***ing practice!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CKPThunder
Ya I remember that play but didn't the replay show that a quarter of the puck went past the blueline? What is the ruling on this type of play? Does the whole puck have to cross the line to be considered offside or if just a portion of the puck crosses the line?
Whole puck has to cross.
__________________ Backlund for Selke 2017 2018
Oilers suck.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CsInMyBlood For This Useful Post:
In that case, it was a brutal call. The linesman probably had the best view of it in the building and he missed it. I wonder if Briere crawling in front of him in pain made him lose focus or something.
Class all the way Coach!
