Brad Treliving needs to go

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Wasn't he hurt/dying of fatigue rather than 'pulled' in Vancouver/Vegas?

He wasn't pulled...he won the play in round and the first round facing more shots than anyone in the playoffs and then got hurt.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Well I think one issue is the lack of team speed against McDavid.

I don't really know if the Flames are a slow team. Certainly a big point of emphasis for Sutter was playing fast. And the Flames have some good skaters on the back end. Above average IMO.

The Oilers are a team with a ton of holes and for some reason, Flames didn't take advantage of any of them so the series became about their stars who are very good obviously.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I would say what is missing is one top six forward (a 30-30 guy) and a proven starting goalie. Hopefully Markstrom can be that guy. He has never done it in a playoff run before and looked terrible in the Oilers series. The Flames have a two year window so I guess now is the the time to do it. In two years they have to pay (as in I expect these guys will get substantive raises) Lindholm, Hanifin, Dube and Kylington and pay or replace Tanev, Toffoli and Backlund.

Lol, 2nd in Vezina voting

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Upon your premise of the Kings beating the Oilers, I can't see how you can assume that the Flames would have certainly beaten the Kings, considering how easily the Oilers beat the Flames.

Markstrom's record against both. Plus he has a weird thing where his performance against Canadian teams dips.

I think the matchup with L.A. was more favorable.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Upon your premise of the Kings beating the Oilers, I can't see how you can assume that the Flames would have certainly beaten the Kings, considering how easily the Oilers beat the Flames.

4 one goal games that were tied in third period isn't really that "easy"

This was a much closer series than the 5 games would lead people to believe, Oilers just got every break.

[Remember1989]

All Brad needs is goddamned vacation.

[MillerTime GFG]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Lol, 2nd in Vezina voting

....voting in which is completed prior to the playoffs.



He wasn't THE reason we lost to the Oilers, but he was A reason.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don't really know if the Flames are a slow team. Certainly a big point of emphasis for Sutter was playing fast. And the Flames have some good skaters on the back end. Above average IMO.

The Oilers are a team with a ton of holes and for some reason, Flames didn't take advantage of any of them so the series became about their stars who are very good obviously.

They did for 50 mins

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Well I think one issue is the lack of team speed against McDavid.

I think this issue is overblown.

I go back to that series and I think of the blueline vs McDavid:

- Andersson did alright against McDavid, not great, but solid enough
- Hanifin, despite having better speed than Andersson, really got burned by McDavid, especially with poor decision-making and awareness. He's the player on our blueline I trust the least.
- Stone was outmatched by McDavid, but was only in there because of an injury.
- Zadorov got burned by McDavid, but most teams' third pairs would. Coach needs to protect his third pair better.
- Kylington-Tanev did very well against McDavid. Kind of got lost in the narrative because of the outcomes of games four and five, but shift-to-shift they really did contain him. Game 5 was McDavid's quietest and I don't believe that was a coincidence, he didn't have much space out there.
- Weegar is a superior skater to guys like Stone and Gudbranson who were here last year, so our blueline should be quicker. In fact, whereas Zadorov was the "skating" defenseman on a pair with Gudbranson, he'd be the "Big slow" defenseman on a pair with Weegar, and doesn't need to play as aggressively if Weegar handles that. That sums up to a pair that might be better than we expect, because I think Weegar's weaknesses might line up with Zadorov's strengths.

In fact game 4 I think we lost to depth guys like Nugent Hopkins and Hyman, and game 5 we only lost on a bad turnover

Unless Tanev loses a step, or we try to match up Monahan vs McDavid (why would we do that?), I think purely matchupwise, Backlund has the wits to check him.

I just want to see Noah Hanifin take a step forward in big matchups, or be traded.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

4 one goal games that were tied in third period isn't really that "easy"

This was a much closer series than the 5 games would lead people to believe, Oilers just got every break.

And they should have won game 5. Got burned big time by the officials.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Wasn't he hurt/dying of fatigue rather than 'pulled' in Vancouver/Vegas?

Originally Posted by dino7c

He wasn't pulled...he won the play in round and the first round facing more shots than anyone in the playoffs and then got hurt.

He played the entire previous game before Demko took over...

There was probably additional issue(s) that played into the decision, but I don't think he was incapable of playing.

Regardless, it's more reason to better manage his minutes moving forward.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

And they should have won game 5. Got burned big time by the officials.

Flames Round Two stats ...

5 on 5

CF% 57.49% (3rd of 8)
xGF% 53.2% (3rd)
SCF% 55.5% (3rd)
HDCF% 55.6% (3rd)
Sh% 10.56% (2nd to Edmonton)
Sav% 84.3% (8th/last)

All situations

CF% 56.5% (3rd of 8)
xGF% 51.7% (4th)
SCF% 53.3% (4th)
HDCF% 52.0% (4th)
Sh% 10.58% (4th)
Sav% 85.3% (8th/last)

I'm not going to go down the Edmonton (wasn't really a sweep) road, but to suggest it was a lopsided series is tough to support.

Having said that ... I do think there is a difference in high danger chances, something that will likely be the next level of advanced stats. If they existed today I think higher high danger + better execution of said chances was firmly in the Oiler corner.

If they could track that I would think the truth of why Edmonton won in 5 games would pop out.

[GioforPM]

I suspect “true” high danger chances (by which I mean chances that are dangerous because of coverage, players on the ice, position of the defenders, etc, and not just chances from particular areas of the ice) favoured Edmonton.

But the Flames would have won game 5. And from there, it’s 3-2, and the pressure starts to shift.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Having said that ... I do think there is a difference in high danger chances, something that will likely be the next level of advanced stats. If they existed today I think higher high danger + better execution of said chances was firmly in the Oiler corner.

Oilers really executed on the High Danger shots better.

Flames:
High Danger Chances: 66
High Danger Shots: 39
High Danger Goals: 6
High Danger Shooting: 15.4%

Oilers:
High Danger Chances: 61
High Danger Shots: 47
High Danger Goals: 13
High Danger Shooting: 27.7%

That was the difference in the series. Part of that was the Oilers being very clinical in front of net, part of it was Markstrom not making enough big saves.

The top team in the league shot 23% High Danger in the regular season, and the league average was 18.8%, so 27.7% was ridiculously high.

Oilers shoot 20% instead of 27.7% and it's 9 goals instead of 13. The goal difference in the series was 5 (20 GF - 25 GA), so this high danger finishing delta is the difference in the series. Flames shooting at their regular season average means 1 more goal for, Oilers shooting at their regular season average meant 4 fewer goals - that's the 5 goal delta right there.

And all of it was driven by McDavid. Overall goals were 18-6 with him on the ice and High Danger goals were 9-0 Oilers with him on the ice. Overall goals were 7-14 without him on the ice, and High Danger was 4-6 without him on the ice. 18 Goals For on an xGF of 9.33 with McDavid on the ice in that series...barf.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Flames Round Two stats ...

5 on 5

CF% 57.49% (3rd of 8)
xGF% 53.2% (3rd)
SCF% 55.5% (3rd)
HDCF% 55.6% (3rd)
Sh% 10.56% (2nd to Edmonton)
Sav% 84.3% (8th/last)

All situations

CF% 56.5% (3rd of 8)
xGF% 51.7% (4th)
SCF% 53.3% (4th)
HDCF% 52.0% (4th)
Sh% 10.58% (4th)
Sav% 85.3% (8th/last)

I'm not going to go down the Edmonton (wasn't really a sweep) road, but to suggest it was a lopsided series is tough to support.

Having said that ... I do think there is a difference in high danger chances, something that will likely be the next level of advanced stats. If they existed today I think higher high danger + better execution of said chances was firmly in the Oiler corner.

If they could track that I would think the truth of why Edmonton won in 5 games would pop out.

It felt lopsided after after losing the lead in game 2. I think it goes to your quality of chances point. With the ability to track the puck maybe we see some data about what is happening right before a shot that would correlate with danger. As well as speed of shot maybe.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It felt lopsided after after losing the lead in game 2. I think it goes to your quality of chances point. With the ability to track the puck maybe we see some data about what is happening right before a shot that would correlate with danger. As well as speed of shot maybe.

Agreed.

I mean high danger is good in that it doesn't just mean shot in close ... it has to be a pass, deflection or a rebound.

But who's getting those chances and how much goalie movement is required to make the save?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Agreed.

I mean high danger is good in that it doesn't just mean shot in close ... it has to be a pass, deflection or a rebound.

But who's getting those chances and how much goalie movement is required to make the save?

And how many defenders are in and around the shot, is there a lot of crease crashing happening, etc.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by MillerTime GFG

....voting in which is completed prior to the playoffs.



He wasn't THE reason we lost to the Oilers, but he was A reason.

The defence in front of him was awful too. Just letting that Oilers first line come into the zone unimpeded.

Was a bit of a perfect storm. You had a top 4 defence, that once they lost Tanev, was totally green. Markstrom was sub-par. The defence and Markstrom both seemed to destroy each others confidence. Then on top of that a few major ref calls didn't go the Flames way.

Markstrom definitely let in a few bad goals, but you can't expect any goalie to maintain their composure when the best player in the world is just constantly driving the net, against very little defensive coverage.

[AustinL_NHL]

- Huberdeau = Gaudreau

- Difference in scoring between Gudbranson/Weegar & increased scoring by committee in general = Tkachuk (hopefully)

- A #1 D-man added in Weegar

- A healthy Tanev

Imagining that team in Round 2 vs Edmonton makes me drool.

So excited for this coming season.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Was just about to say this. Markstrom has probably shown the highest ability to play in the playoffs of anyone on the Flames roster, aside from maybe Coleman and Lucic of 10 yrs ago.

Of course he's also shown that he's not always great. I don't think he was the Canucks problem in rd 2 against VGK as they failed to score in 2 of his 4 starts, but it also didn't seem like a crazy idea to switch to Demko...it just seemed like a hail-mary, and it nearly worked (and no, switching to Vladar would have been dumb).

More reason to re-think Markstrom's load mgmt, though.

Unfortunately, for all the good Sutter does for a franchise as a coach, goalie management has always been a hill to die on for him. He rides the #1 and he'll tell you straight up that he's gonna do it, lol.