[PGT] Flames lose in Colorado 3-0: Just wait until you get to Calgary, losers.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by imeubu

We've all heard the adage “hope for the best and plan for the worst”.

Regarding Claude Giroux. A few days ago I posted a question. “Why can't Calgary find a way to “rent” him?” You folks, in chorus, explained why there was “no hope” of that happening.

I want to assure everyone that I received your feedback sheepishly, immediately assuming the requisite “hound dog” body language while mumbling “yes of course, how silly of me, don't get up, I'll show myself out”.

Now that I'm able to sit up and take nourishment again I find myself confronting the other side of that coin. So, if the Flames indeed have no “hope for the best” Giroux wise, what is the most effective and responsible way for them to “prepare for the worst”?

IMO the “worst” scenario for Calgary has Giroux going to Colorado. A reasonably probable eventuality, again IMO. Colorado is a Cup favorite and they are conveniently able to exploit the LTIR via Landeskog and Girard).

My understanding is that the majority of those who “know hockey” say the Flames need more strength up the middle and more depth in their defense.

BTW, not that it matters, IMO the former is much more important.

Here's my question.

“What are the top 3 options available for the Flames to add strength up the middle between now and Trade Deadline?”

I don't know enough about the talent that might be available nor can I calculate the probabilities because I don't fully understand the various “currencies” NHL teams seem to use when they barter (no trade clauses, cap, character, connections and what seems like dozens of other types of data available only to those with “inside” information.

From my experience on this site a lot of you seem to stay up to date about such things.

W.
T.
Actual.
F?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I find this a bit bizarre

“spot on”

Meaghan says you can’t give an elite player like MacKinnon time and space

Darryl calls the goal weak (didn’t call out the goalie directly, but you go ahead and call out the implication)

Then he says entering the third 1-0 is perfect

I am absolutely certain that all goalies let in some goals, based on play situation, shooter location, shot placement (dependent on time and space), goalie positioning, time to respond, and their subsequent reaction (if it’s even a factor, which depends on physics)

The case in favour of goal “weakness”:
There is a disturbing trend with Vladar. When you give Ovechkin and MacKinnon time and space, ability to place their shots, it’s on the goalie?

It’s kind of comical. These guys aren’t among the top 10 in the NHL because they have trouble scoring when given all the time and space in the world

He certainly didn't let one in from center, and for sure it was Nathan MacKinnon and not some scrub, but you generally don't want to see goaltenders beat short side unscreened.

Personally I think he made a few saves he shouldn't have and was great on the night.

But that goal wasn't great.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

He certainly didn't let one in from center, and for sure it was Nathan MacKinnon and not some scrub, but you generally don't want to see goaltenders beat short side unscreened.

Personally I think he made a few saves he shouldn't have and was great on the night.

But that goal wasn't great.

I agree, it was saveable, but overall goaltending was not the reason for the loss. It was the type of goal that Markstrom has let in several times this season as well, but Sutter didn’t come out and throw him under the bus right away.

With Sutter he has earned the benefit of the doubt in the way he handles players, but it is unusual the double standard he seems to have with a young goalie who has to perform after weeks between starts at times.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I find this a bit bizarre

“spot on”

Meaghan says you can’t give an elite player like MacKinnon time and space

Darryl calls the goal weak (didn’t call out the goalie directly, but you go ahead and call out the implication)

Then he says entering the third 1-0 is perfect

I am absolutely certain that all goalies let in some goals, based on play situation, shooter location, shot placement (dependent on time and space), goalie positioning, time to respond, and their subsequent reaction (if it’s even a factor, which depends on physics)

The case in favour of goal “weakness”:
There is a disturbing trend with Vladar. When you give Ovechkin and MacKinnon time and space, ability to place their shots, it’s on the goalie?

It’s kind of comical. These guys aren’t among the top 10 in the NHL because they have trouble scoring when given all the time and space in the world

I guess it’s how you want to interpret it. MacKinnon had a week and a half of time there, you can’t give that guy that much time and space. Makes it a weak goal from a team perspective. That’s more how I took it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

I agree, it was saveable, but overall goaltending was not the reason for the loss. It was the type of goal that Markstrom has let in several times this season as well, but Sutter didn’t come out and throw him under the bus right away.

With Sutter he has earned the benefit of the doubt in the way he handles players, but it is unusual the double standard he seems to have with a young goalie who has to perform after weeks between starts at times.

I don't know ...

He's walked out "that's his job" often when Markstrom has solid nights. I honestly don't think he likes goaltenders getting accolades. He has a system and when the system gives up a goal that he thinks a goalie should have had he's quick to point it out.

[Poe969]

Sometimes you're the boot, sometimes you're the ant. The Flames were the ant in this game, it doesn't happen often but it happened. Move on.

They could give lots of excuses for the loss but what's the point? Accept the loss, use it as motivation and then take it out on them next game.

[tvp2003]

I remember a time when losses like this were just regular losses. Not against the best team in the league. Not at the end of a back-to-back on the road, to finish a terrible run of 5 games in 7 days. Just another game where the boys were a step too slow and couldn't finish anything. Remember those days?

Back on the horse on Wednesday, to get back into the win column.

[GS Skier]

I noticed that in spite of being the losing goalie of record, Vladars numbers actually improved.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Mr_Pilot

Not mad about this one at all. Scheduled loss playing on the second night of a back to back, with travel, against the best team in the conference who were hungry to stop a two game slide of their own.

Was watching the Avs broadcast. Holy homer city, Batman.

I switched to the Avs feed because the Sportsnet feed was garbage. You always have to expect pure homerism from Altitude, they've always been that way. I did notice however they fawned over Gaudreau multiple times and kept talking about how strong of a team Calgary is. I think it's a testament to how well the Flames are playing when even the most homer broadcast team in the league is pumping their tires

[Strange Brew]

Those two are huge homers but they know their audience. Peter McNab is an absolute class act and as I understand it, going through some very serious health issues.

A homer broadcast will always play up the opposition, just makes the home team seem that much better.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

I agree, it was saveable, but overall goaltending was not the reason for the loss.

Just because Sutter didn't like the first goal doesn't mean he's pinning the loss on Vladar though. You can't win if you don't score any goals.

[robertsfanatic]

Originally Posted by imeubu

We've all heard the adage “hope for the best and plan for the worst”.

Regarding Claude Giroux. A few days ago I posted a question. “Why can't Calgary find a way to “rent” him?” You folks, in chorus, explained why there was “no hope” of that happening.

I want to assure everyone that I received your feedback sheepishly, immediately assuming the requisite “hound dog” body language while mumbling “yes of course, how silly of me, don't get up, I'll show myself out”.

Now that I'm able to sit up and take nourishment again I find myself confronting the other side of that coin. So, if the Flames indeed have no “hope for the best” Giroux wise, what is the most effective and responsible way for them to “prepare for the worst”?

IMO the “worst” scenario for Calgary has Giroux going to Colorado. A reasonably probable eventuality, again IMO. Colorado is a Cup favorite and they are conveniently able to exploit the LTIR via Landeskog and Girard).

My understanding is that the majority of those who “know hockey” say the Flames need more strength up the middle and more depth in their defense.

BTW, not that it matters, IMO the former is much more important.

Here's my question.

“What are the top 3 options available for the Flames to add strength up the middle between now and Trade Deadline?”

I don't know enough about the talent that might be available nor can I calculate the probabilities because I don't fully understand the various “currencies” NHL teams seem to use when they barter (no trade clauses, cap, character, connections and what seems like dozens of other types of data available only to those with “inside” information.

From my experience on this site a lot of you seem to stay up to date about such things.

you might want to take a look at the trade rumours thread and post this in there as it would be more relevant....you should get an answer at least.

[dino7c]

the first goal was bad and 100% should have been saved, not why they lost though

time and space? he is a mile away and there is no screen, let him shoot from there all day

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I find this a bit bizarre

“spot on”

Meaghan says you can’t give an elite player like MacKinnon time and space

Darryl calls the goal weak (didn’t call out the goalie directly, but you go ahead and call out the implication)

Then he says entering the third 1-0 is perfect

I am absolutely certain that all goalies let in some goals, based on play situation, shooter location, shot placement (dependent on time and space), goalie positioning, time to respond, and their subsequent reaction (if it’s even a factor, which depends on physics)

The case in favour of goal “weakness”:
There is a disturbing trend with Vladar. When you give Ovechkin and MacKinnon time and space, ability to place their shots, it’s on the goalie?

It’s kind of comical. These guys aren’t among the top 10 in the NHL because they have trouble scoring when given all the time and space in the world

I agree that fans are too quick to blame the goalie when a sniper has time and space and puts one past them from 10-15 ft.

I will be curious to see if you are as supportive of Markstrom, next time the same thing happens to him though.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I agree that fans are too quick to blame the goalie when a sniper has time and space and puts one past them from 10-15 ft.

I will be curious to see if you are as supportive of Markstrom, next time the same thing happens to him though.

he won't be, post history is a thing...go look at his hot takes in the Markstrom/Talbot thread.

Vladar has had a really good year...that goal wasn't good at all though no need to defend it

nobody thought the Ovechkin goal was on Vladar either, it was a couple of the other ones they could have used a save on.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I agree that fans are too quick to blame the goalie when a sniper has time and space and puts one past them from 10-15 ft.

I will be curious to see if you are as supportive of Markstrom, next time the same thing happens to him though.

Sure will. It’s the shot, not the goalie.

Giving a guy time and space, he basically gets to find an open hole, and place his bet as to whether he can put the puck there before the goalie can move to block that spot. There are always some spaces, due to the difference in the shape of the human body and the shape of the hockey net.

Then it comes down to shot placement, and goalie movement (time to respond).

Markstrom has been playing awesome this year, no issues here at all

[dino7c]

Goalie should make a save from that far out with no traffic, I bet Vladar thinks he should have had it. Other goal is point blank off of a turnover and he made a bunch of saves that would have been no fault of his if they went in. Overall it was a very good game from Vladar, way better than his last start.

Its not a terrible goal like a shot from center ice or something but its not a good goal, no need to bend over backwards to defend it. Every goalie lets those in or worse. There was nothing magical about the shot though.

[Classic_Sniper]

Tough game last night for any team to win considering the circumstances. Still give the team tremendous credit for their performance in the 5 games in 7 nights. Nor easy at all, yet there were some great performances in there. Thought Vladar was the team’s best player despite the first goal he allowed. He more than made up for it with the big saves he made later on, he gave the Flames every chance to win, but hard to win when you can’t score.

I do find it concerning that in 120 minutes vs the Avs, only the top line has looked like a real threat to score. The Avalanche have the superior depth and in a 7 game series, I can’t imagine the Flames coming out on top with the weapons Colorado has.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I do find it concerning that in 120 minutes vs the Avs, only the top line has looked like a real threat to score. The Avalanche have the superior depth and in a 7 game series, I can’t imagine the Flames coming out on top with the weapons Colorado has.

I didn't watch yesterday's game so I'm not in a position to challenge your observation


however if I look at it- through the 2 games (both played in Colorado, the 2nd where the Flames were in a real tough spot) even Colorado's goals have been mostly from their 'top line' with one from Burakovsky on the PP


in terms of forwards scoring but have their top line +1 (Kadri/mangiapane) in the 20 goal club, the another knocking on the door (Burakovsky/Toffoli) then one in the mid teens (Nikuschkin/Coleman)...then they have a few 11s we have a few 9s etc


forward depth seems not so far off offensively (ok sure this could change if Giroux etc are added)


now of course an issue is that Makar/Toews that is 30 goals from the back end right there- our D is contributing offensively but not like THAT

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I do find it concerning that in 120 minutes vs the Avs, only the top line has looked like a real threat to score. The Avalanche have the superior depth and in a 7 game series, I can’t imagine the Flames coming out on top with the weapons Colorado has.

I didn't watch yesterday's game so I'm not in a position to challenge your observation


however if I look at it- through the 2 games (both played in Colorado, the 2nd where the Flames were in a real tough spot) even Colorado's goals have been mostly from their 'top line' with one from Burakovsky on the PP


in terms of forwards scoring both have their top line +1 (Kadri/mangiapane) in the 20 goal club, the another knocking on the door (Burakovsky/Toffoli) then one in the mid teens (Nikuschkin/Coleman)...then they have a few 11s we have a few 9s etc


forward depth seems not so far off offensively (ok sure this could change if Giroux etc are added)


now of course an issue is that Makar/Toews that is 30 goals from the back end right there- our D is contributing offensively but not like THAT