Mike Smith's... woes? He blows? Eating crows? Who knows! (Also David Rittich exists!)

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Eubee

If you think Kipper didn’t burn out, you were not watching the Flames back then. Clearly. Anyone who lived through that that feels otherwise....you were not watching the team.

Feelings aren’t facts.

1) I myself was watching. STH, was there a lot
2) never heard the goalie or the coaches blame goalie fatigue
3) The stats don’t bear it out
4) The narrative doesn’t bear it out

Look at how the Flames actually exited the playoffs.

Game 7 vs Anaheim, team was horribly flat and deserved to lose
Detroit, Kipper stood on his head and kept them in a series in which they were dominated.
Keenan’s last year, vs Chicago, the team was decimated by injuries and limped in to the playoffs. Langkow played with broken hands, Phaneuf broken ribs, Regehr and Gio didn’t play but Pardy, Vanderneer and Eriksson did. Nothing to do with Kipper burning out.

[browna]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Feelings aren’t facts.

1) I myself was watching. STH, was there a lot
2) never heard the goalie or the coaches blame goalie fatigue
3) The stats don’t bear it out
4) The narrative doesn’t bear it out

Look at how the Flames actually exited the playoffs.

Game 7 vs Anaheim, team was horribly flat and deserved to lose
Detroit, Kipper stood on his head and kept them in a series in which they were dominated.
Keenan’s last year, vs Chicago, the team was decimated by injuries and limped in to the playoffs. Langkow played with broken hands, Phaneuf broken ribs, Regehr and Gio didn’t play but Pardy, Vanderneer and Eriksson did. Nothing to do with Kipper burning out.

The Chicago series, make whatever reasons for your narrative, but Kiprusoff was done after game 4. First 4 games were tight, but 76 games in the regular season caught up, and 5-1 and 4-1 losses were not just on Langkow hands, or Phanuefs injuries, or scoring disappearing; Kipper was done too,mentally physically, whatever, as part of that collapse.

I thought the Flames made the playoffs 4 times with Kipper? You only list 3? Oh yes, the loss to San Jose the year before Chicago where Kipper had played 76 regular season games, the most on his career to that point, and got pulled in Game 3 and 7 after terrible starts, and he had a 3.27 gaa in the playoffs, over .6 more goals per game. Again, how to argue that you can't see how starting all but 6 games in 9 months of hockey can catch up at some point when you start playing every second night in high stakes and high stress playoffs,wjth the pressure on you as a premier goalie in the league?

[Eubee]

Actually it was Kipper, at the Kilt, saying he was so burned out to be competitive any more, but he was too competitve to give up the net. Mentally burned out, which was wearing on him physically. True story. Narrative and all.

QUOTE=DeluxeMoustache;6919969]Feelings aren’t facts.

1) I myself was watching. STH, was there a lot
2) never heard the goalie or the coaches blame goalie fatigue
3) The stats don’t bear it out
4) The narrative doesn’t bear it out

Look at how the Flames actually exited the playoffs.

Game 7 vs Anaheim, team was horribly flat and deserved to lose
Detroit, Kipper stood on his head and kept them in a series in which they were dominated.
Keenan’s last year, vs Chicago, the team was decimated by injuries and limped in to the playoffs. Langkow played with broken hands, Phaneuf broken ribs, Regehr and Gio didn’t play but Pardy, Vanderneer and Eriksson did. Nothing to do with Kipper burning out.[/QUOTE]

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by browna

The Chicago series, make whatever reasons for your narrative, but Kiprusoff was done after game 4. First 4 games were tight, but 76 games in the regular season caught up, and 5-1 and 4-1 losses were not just on Langkow hands, or Phanuefs injuries, or scoring disappearing; Kipper was done too,mentally physically, whatever, as part of that collapse.

I thought the Flames made the playoffs 4 times with Kipper? You only list 3? Oh yes, the loss to San Jose the year before Chicago where Kipper had played 76 regular season games, the most on his career to that point, and got pulled in Game 3 and 7 after terrible starts, and he had a 3.27 gaa in the playoffs, over .6 more goals per game. Again, how to argue that you can't see how starting all but 6 games in 9 months of hockey can catch up at some point when you start playing every second night in high stakes and high stress playoffs,wjth the pressure on you as a premier goalie in the league?

Not an intentional omission. I had shall we say, a life event that year, don’t remember much of it!

I was just relating anecdotally what I remembered well

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You're god damned right.

In numerous instances appeals to authority are the most valid means by which we can judge various decisions. Amid the vast vacuum of information that we have about the decisions coaches are making with their goalies, it is pretty persuasive.

I'll take the coach's decision over the musings of some internet schmuck ten times out of ten when the coach has his team in first place in the Division by Christmas.

What the hell...

[GioforPM]

All I know is that in the Edmonton thread we all made fun of Edmonton for riding Talbot so hard one season that he's been no good for two afterwards.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by zamler

What the hell...

His posting style is grating, no doubt.

Here's the deal with TC. Treliving is his dude. Any move or lack thereof is the correct one within that context.

I may be an internet schmuck, but I was 100% right about Gulutzan/Cameron well before they were fired.

My take is that both Rittich and Smith will get worse pending enough of Sigalet's working with them. The dude is somehow bulletproof, but if Sigalet IS an issue it makes BT look bad so it's dismissed per the narrative above.

The fact is that Treliving has gone through a lot of goalies. Calgary is getting Backstrom calibre tending from Smith.

Hiller
Ramo
Backstrom
Ortio
Johnson
Elliott
Smith
Rittich
Gillies
Lack

[FlameX]

I'm hoping Rittich will be able to hold his position as a starter and not end up like the other 9 goalies. If Parsons can become our main backup then I'll be satisfied. I just don't see Gillies becoming the Flames main backup in the future, but who knows. I've been told that it takes goalies usually until they're around 25 to start playing well.

[jonkaupp]

Kinda weird that i suggested Rittich get the number of starts that would get him to 55-60 and then the ‘logic’ crew starts saying you’ll burn out your goalie with 70+ starts lol. 55-60 is a perfectly normal number of starts for a No 1. And that’s what we have, a No 1 and a No 2, no more of this 1 and 1a bull. Hopefully they find a better backup, but again, Rittich doesn’t just need to be getting the majority of starts, he needs to be getting the large majority of starts.

I agree that a 70+ game workload isn’t a great idea, but no one has actually suggested that Rittich get to that number this year (because he literally can’t at this point). The idea that Rittich can’t carry a heavy workload for half a season is blown away by the kipper comparison however, as pointed out by Deluxe, Kipper never played more than 22 games in a season when he went on his early run and subsequent vezina season. I think even if Rittich succeeds and looks like a great no 1 option for next season, which I think is very possible, that won’t negate the fact that they need to acquire a very good backup so that they can keep Rittich at 55-60 starts for next year as well. But for this year i hope they run him hard in the second half of the season, which is not unreasonable at all imo. Mike Smith is cancelled far as I’m concerned.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

The market strongly suggests otherwise. Backup tenders make a fraction of what a second line or second pairing defensemen

That is a really good point, the market should value them based on value to the team.

Although I wonder if the market is underpaying. I've got to think the leagues best backup is probably only 1 or maybe 1.5 mm more than the worst. I think the best backup stats would have the Flames with 4-6 more standings points than Mike Smith, which seems like money ball style value to me.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'll take the coach's decision over the musings of some internet schmuck.

Can I get a clarification on when personal attacks are allowed? Is it based on the words used or the poster personally attacked?

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Can I get a clarification on when personal attacks are allowed? Is it based on the words used or the poster personally attacked?

Considering the mods made his customer title "Acerbic Cyberbully" The likely answer is they don't give AF

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by zamler

What the hell...

Hardly offensive and anyone who thinks it is needs to grow some thicker skin.

Are we not ALL just internet schmucks with a variety of opinions when all is said and done?

[Badgers Nose]

“... Smith is actively costing this team games...”

What a preposterous statement. You are saying he is intentionally losing games? That’s what your words mean.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

His posting style is grating, no doubt.

Here's the deal with TC. Treliving is his dude. Any move or lack thereof is the correct one within that context.

I may be an internet schmuck, but I was 100% right about Gulutzan/Cameron well before they were fired.

My take is that both Rittich and Smith will get worse pending enough of Sigalet's working with them. The dude is somehow bulletproof, but if Sigalet IS an issue it makes BT look bad so it's dismissed per the narrative above.

The fact is that Treliving has gone through a lot of goalies. Calgary is getting Backstrom calibre tending from Smith.

Hiller
Ramo
Backstrom
Ortio
Johnson
Elliott
Smith
Rittich
Gillies
Lack

So if I understand your position here...

Sigalet will somehow destroy Rittich's abilities cause...some reason?

Yet. the same Sigalet who will do this gets no credit for turning Rittich into the very goaltender that we have seen this year? The same guy who is strongly trending towards becoming a very good to great starting #1.

How does that work exactly?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Hardly offensive and anyone who thinks it is needs to grow some thicker skin.

Maybe but such things are against the rules.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by zamler

Maybe but such things are against the rules.

I guess but i think there are certain things that are against the spirit of the "rule" and actually against it as intended. Admittedly that is subjective at best however.

I dont want to derail this thread but the amount of whining some have in regards to what someone else says in regards to them on an internet forun has reached absurd levels. Though, again admittedly, that's the way society has gone the last decade or so. Everyone has to be completely offended by something somewhere. Just my opinion of course.

[Shazam]

It's not a personal attack - no one was directly named.

It's fairly passive aggressive though.

[ResAlien]

I like it, now the door’s open to call anyone an internet schmuck whenever you disagree with their opinion. It serves to embiggen us all.

And Mike Smith stinks but we’re stuck with him this year. Would it be smart to try and get a better player to be a 1b or backup to Rittich? Of course it would. But you work with what you have not with what you want. Hopefully Rittich can handle becoming a starter and Smith doesn’t cost the team valuable points or possible playoff games.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

“... Smith is actively costing this team games...”

What a preposterous statement. You are saying he is intentionally losing games? That’s what your words mean.

I would say Smith has let in one or two softies on most of his losing performances and even in a couple of wins. I don’t think those are intentional, but it is actively costing us points.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I like it, now the door’s open to call anyone an internet schmuck whenever you disagree with their opinion. It serves to embiggen us all.

And Mike Smith stinks but we’re stuck with him this year. Would it be smart to try and get a better player to be a 1b or backup to Rittich? Of course it would. But you work with what you have not with what you want. Hopefully Rittich can handle becoming a starter and Smith doesn’t cost the team valuable points or possible playoff games.

That's fine with me, if that's the rule for everyone I think that's not an issue at all.