[PGT] Flames lay an egg

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Not getting a proper C for Iggy is one of the great crimes of the last 100 years.

Would have been nice to get a return for Iggy but we were never getting a franchise centre back in any deal. The real misfortune is our highest ever draft pick at number 4 not being the player we needed. Draft picks are never a certainty but the Bennett pick is the reason we don't have that bonafide number one centre.

[ricosuave]

No I think he meant getting a C to play with Iginla...

[chedder]

Originally Posted by ricosuave

No I think he meant getting a C to play with Iginla...

Ah. That makes sense. To that I totally agree. Reading comprehension lacking today.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by browna

Not pining over Peters.

The point is that this team and this core, with the right system to make full use of their talents, implemented through someone who makes sure that his system is successful because it is 100% bought into via discipline/fear/keep players on edge/whatever, can get and has gotten results with the core of this team, 2 short years ago.

And all those things got the team destroyed in the playoffs and a bad 1/3 of the next season.

IMO no coach can make sure his players do what they need to do to win. Whether it’s through fear or positive reinforcement.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by ricosuave

No I think he meant getting a C to play with Iginla...

Savard?

[memphusk]

I would pass on Savard. Looks like he has lost a few steps.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

So because the dumb decision, IMO, happened to work that time, I shouldn't complain about that dumb decision?

Because the Flames world class goalie happened to shut down the Canucks, that time, I am shouldn't complain about that dumb decision?

By that definition, we are only allowed to complain about deployment decisions if there is a goal allowed. Make sense.

But why is it a dumb decision if it worked?
Just because you don’t like it, that makes it dumb?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Red

High Danger chances are not the only representation of what actual high danger scoring chances are. They are a terrible measure/indicator of scoring chances.

Really? But let's freak out about the fake shot count where Vancouver was credited with shots that missed the net

[Red]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Really? But let's freak out about the fake shot count where Vancouver was credited with shots that missed the net

Well, I never mentioned shot counts.
But since you just did, the shots were a bit inflated, I watched for them as others made comments. But they were not THAT bad.

And frankly, that's irrelevant.

You keep bringing up these HDSC stats as if to correct people's opinions. It's like telling people that what they are seeing with their own eyes is wrong. We just discussed the criteria for them with Bingo and others in other threads. They are not even close to painting the picture.

And there were the giveaway stats from last night where JG showed 0 giveaways. Meanwhile people were coming unhinged about him turning the puck over with his bump backs on this very board

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Red

You keep bringing up these HDSC stats as if to correct people's opinions. It's like telling people that what they are seeing with their own eyes is wrong. We just discussed the criteria for them with Bingo and others in other threads. They are not even close to painting the picture.

The reason the criteria are important is precisely because what we all are "seeing with our own eyes" is pretty dramatically different. The numbers are intended to remove some of the bias that we all bring into a game viewing.

This is a clear example of precisely that: you seem quite convinced that the Flames were bleeding chances last night. That is entirely different from what I saw, which was a very high volume of low-percenrage shots, and routine saves.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Burning Beard]

I just want to say that Lindholm is playing good this year with some added snarl. It is nice to see.

Also the D core is really good this year too.

After some negativity from myself I just wanted to add some positivity on my part.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

But why is it a dumb decision if it worked?
Just because you don’t like it, that makes it dumb?

Yeah you got me. Just because I didn't like it, it is dumb. By your definition 95% of the stuff they tried "worked" because they didn't get scored on. Johnny should keep trying to skate through 4 dudes at the opposing blue line since they didn't get scored on, it must be working.

Your right though, the head coach should just role those rookie dmen out steady for PK's in close games since we know it "works" lol.

Anyway, my opinion. I see yours and not looking to keep this going. Enjoy your night.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The reason the criteria are important is precisely because what we all are "seeing with our own eyes" is pretty dramatically different. The numbers are intended to remove some of the bias that we all bring into a game viewing.

This is a clear example of precisely that: you seem quite convinced that the Flames were bleeding changes last night. That is entirely different from what I saw, which was a very high volume of low-percenrage shots, and routine saves.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

I do? Interesting conclusion.

I'm convinced that HDSC stats are very misleading. Because of the criteria they use.

In perfectly aligned world what the HDSC stat tells me should match what I see. I mean in a given game guy goes on a breakaway, scores a goal. Surely that's a HDSC that should have no debate between us, right? (apparently it is not) . But you conclude that the stat and eye test should be different.. You assume that eye test is always biased. And evidently you clearly ay saw the game different than me, 10s of others here, the tv analysts and other hockey analysts. They sort of saw what I did, a Flames team that got badly outplyed.

To the point, we have our eyes versus a very flawed criteria for the HDSC stat. What is more accurate? We know with a 100% certainty that the criteria does not account for multiple scenarios for a scoring chance. it is very flawed. On the other side you could maybe have someone dispute if a breakaway happened or if it should be a scoring chance. But then you would just ignore that person. Because that's crazy talk. That's why I ignore HDSC stats.

[djsFlames]

56 game season, there's going to be another guaranteed 15-20 losses. Can we just try to handle them better?

I don't like the suicide booth atmosphere here after every single one.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I seriously doubt it. The Canucks owned the offensive zone last night, but they barely had any really quality looks. I honestly didn't think their defensive game was that bad; the problem was their transitions and the gawd-awful performance with the puck.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Does this not remind of the DAL series? Talbot had an incredible game that series too.

Why is it that opponents hem CGY in and CGY is unable to make any plays (like can't connect simple passes) and just have to hold on - only able to dump pucks into nz.

The players have had numerous terrible periods where they barely generate shots.

What is the root cause of all this? What does Treliving think (I realize only he knows this but I'm wondering if they answers beyond "for whatever reason we couldn't execute ").

[Red]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

56 game season, there's going to be another guaranteed 15-20 losses. Can we just try to handle them better?

I don't like the suicide booth atmosphere here after every single one.

Suicide booth? I think you are being more dramatic than anyone complaining about the game itself.

Look, I get it. It is negative here after a bad loss like this, but so what? People are talking because they care. Better than silence.
I always say, those that complain should provide a fix for whatever they are complaining about. And to be honest, they do. Trade this guy, fire that guy etc. Solutions, as bad as some may be. Then there are the ones complaining about complainers. What's their solution? Shut up. Don't talk. Don't talk on a message board that is for talking.
And for the record. This place wasn't like this 15 games in to the Bill Peters first season. People were quite happy.

One wonders why lol.

[Jeff Lebowski]

CGY spends too much time in their end. They get tired chasing and make bad reads and weak plays because of this fatigue, imo.

I can't recall the full sequence but Monahan has the puck near circle in d zone and his play is to try and flip up the middle (it got knocked down).

Gio tries to make a pass behind his net from corner - he hits the frame of the net and it deflects off target and leads to more sustained pressure.

They play really bad in their end at times but really well under pressure at other times. Are the players not sticking to the system? Is it bad luck?

Why the continued self inflicted issues? Every poor showing they say they learn but it keeps happening. That's what's troubling. Why?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

CGY spends too much time in their end. They get tired chasing and make bad reads and weak plays because of this fatigue, imo.

I can't recall the full sequence but Monahan has the puck near circle in d zone and his play is to try and flip up the middle (it got knocked down).

Gio tries to make a pass behind his net from corner - he hits the frame of the net and it deflects off target and leads to more sustained pressure.

They play really bad in their end at times but really well under pressure at other times. Are the players not sticking to the system? Is it bad luck?

Why the continued self inflicted issues? Every poor showing they say they learn but it keeps happening. That's what's troubling. Why?

Well, every player makes mistakes, which is why I hate focussing on particular plays. Overall last game I think they just didn’t get enough pucks through to the net. I think they had a lot of chances deflected, whereas Vancouver got theirs through.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Going into crisis mode after every loss is getting old.

You guys are familiar with the team. You know that major changes will not happen mid season during a covid year where budgets are tight and quarantine is required.

Nasty effort but it can only get better. Can we ever just say "burn the tape and move on to the next one" and leave it at that?

I think that’s the reason why people are upset and complaining now.

It’s not getting better. For like, literally, years.

When do we get permission to critique?

Sorry if it’s too negative for sensitivities but maybe people wouldn’t complain if the players put forth an effort. Here’s the thing and I mean this so sincerely and genuinely. If this team went 0-56 this year but looked like they were trying and gave a ####, I would be happier than I am watching disinterested spoiled entitlement float around and randomly decide when to plug in.

Personally I want to cheer for a team that cares and that puts effort in on a consistent basis.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Red

I do? Interesting conclusion.

It seems like you do. Which is why I said "you SEEM quite convinced ..."

So, do you believe the Flames were bleeding high quality chances last night? Or do you think that most of the Canucks offensive zone pressure was pretty impotent?

I'm convinced that HDSC stats are very misleading. Because of the criteria they use.

And I am convinced that they are flawed but still highly informative and useful.

Oh noes. We have drawn different conclusions.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk