[PGT] Wild 5 Flames 2

[Toonage]

This is why I'm happy we have a smaller goalie in Wolf. Flames goaltending coaches can't tell him to play from his knees the moment the puck enters the zone.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Toonage

This is why I'm happy we have a smaller goalie in Wolf. Flames goaltending coaches can't tell him to play from his knees the moment the puck enters the zone.

It's funny but you are blaming goalie coaches like others but you seem to ahve different notions ab out what's being coached. Too mobile/too stationary. Too far back in the crease/too aggressive.

For me, good or bad performances from the goalies seem to come down to puck tracking. If Markstrom and Vladar track well, they anticpate, don't have to move wildly and seem to be in good postion. If not, they move late and make either spectacular saves (because they are out of position) or don't make the save at all. Last night I didn't feel like Vladar was tracking the puck well, or anticipating the shot directions.

I also feel like Wolf will always look a bit out of control because he has to move more to cover the same area.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's funny but you are blaming goalie coaches like others but you seem to ahve different notions ab out what's being coached. Too mobile/too stationary. Too far back in the crease/too aggressive.

For me, good or bad performances from the goalies seem to come down to puck tracking. If Markstrom and Vladar track well, they anticpate, don't have to move wildly and seem to be in good postion. If not, they move late and make either spectacular saves (because they are out of position) or don't make the save at all. Last night I didn't feel like Vladar was tracking the puck well, or anticipating the shot directions.

I also feel like Wolf will always look a bit out of control because he has to move more to cover the same area.

I think I've generally been pretty lenient when it comes to criticizing our goalie coaches.

I do find that our goalies, those of size, exhibit some common behaviours when they get to Calgary that we didn't see before they were here. Could be coaching, could be them just trying what feels natural or different based on the defense in front of them.

Right now I'm bothered by how often I see Vladar on his pads as soon as the puck enters the zone. That said I didn't see a ton of Vladar in Boston/Providence so maybe this is the norm for him.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Thankfully Treliving didn't also sabotage the team with another boat anchor deal with Mangiapane.

Just a complete meh hockey player. Rode a heater to 16 million.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Thankfully Treliving didn't also sabotage the team with another boat anchor deal with Mangiapane.

Just a complete meh hockey player. Rode a heater to 16 million.

He was a good player in junior and AHL. Had that amazing world championships. He's just hit the wall as a pro. He's a guy you can move in and out of the middle 6 and on a good year maybe pot 20 goals. They shouldn't have any issues moving him at the trade deadline next season.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He was a good player in junior and AHL. Had that amazing world championships. He's just hit the wall as a pro. He's a guy you can move in and out of the middle 6 and on a good year maybe pot 20 goals. They shouldn't have any issues moving him at the trade deadline next season.

We we are paying him because he was good for other teams but not us? Seems on brand.

We should have cashed in on him after that fluke season. I doubt he ever tops 20 goals in the NHL again. Looks like he will settle into that 15-17 goal range he has always been at, and a advanced stats darling with people wondering why he can't score more.

[Wastedyouth]

Sell sell sell!

[direwolf]

This team wildly inconsistent. They don't seem to have trouble beating top teams like the Stars and Knights, and I thought they played a strong against the Avs. And then they turn around and lose to a bottom feeder like the Wild.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Thankfully Treliving didn't also sabotage the team with another boat anchor deal with Mangiapane.

Just a complete meh hockey player. Rode a heater to 16 million.

Losing Gaudreau and Tkachuk hurt many of our players' values, Lindholm and Mangiapane being prime candidates. I think he will figure it out, but he is likely a 45-60 point player and won't exceed the current cap hit he has. You can't blame the guy for at least cashing in on a few years after being lowballed by Treliving from the get-go.

1 x 715k
2 x 2.425m
3 x 5.8m

Averages out to $3,827,500 x 6. Can't say I'd pay him that cap hit his first year because he was still fresh, but would we have batted an eye if we had made a little extra room to offer him an extra 2m for 5 years (4.45m x 5) at the time coming off a season with 32 points in 68 games (20/21)? Probably not.

I'd even be willing to put him on the block too if there was a team wanting to get rid of a cap dump that expires at the same time if they offered a premium prospect or pick. Mangiapane is still an effective player, but in my opinion, he needs a great 2-way play-driving center/winger flanking him for him to be good. Also relies heavily on a good shooting percentage.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The thing is, people use single game save % here all the time. That's the narrow point.

If you're referring to me...

I use a single game SV% in a long series of single game SV%s. In other words, "another <.900SV%, to add to X games recently with low SA." Maybe you just see the one post and chalk it up to that?

But I don't think ".8XXSV% on 21 shots X times is not good enough for an NHL #1 goaltender" to be an outrageous/unreasonable take. Especially if X is a large number over a 75 game stretch.

[topfiverecords]

Wow, Robert and Pat really got heated last night.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

If you're referring to me...

I use a single game SV% in a long series of single game SV%s. In other words, "another <.900SV%, to add to X games recently with low SA." Maybe you just see the one post and chalk it up to that?

But I don't think ".8XXSV% on 21 shots X times is not good enough for an NHL #1 goaltender" to be an outrageous/unreasonable take. Especially if X is a large number over a 75 game stretch.

Dude, people will, in the middle of a game, post that "Markstrom is rocking a .700 save % if the seventh shot goes in. Which is just not that unusual.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Dude, people will, in the middle of a game, post that "Markstrom is rocking a .700 save % if the seventh shot goes in. Which is just not that unusual.

Well if something like that happens a lot and there is a pattern then, IMO, it is worth discussing. But to each their own.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

People want trades

What do you expect when you start trading your regulars?

Tank and rebuild. Any minute now!

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Toonage

I do find that our goalies, those of size, exhibit some common behaviours when they get to Calgary that we didn't see before they were here.

Yeah they always play deeper in their crease which IMO is a result of goalie coaching. As far as I recall it became a trend with Smith coming in and being advised that he didn't need to move around as much due to being really tall. The problem is while playing deeper in your crease, opposing forwards can simply just try to pick the corners. They're also more vulnerable to deflections, with the odd puck just seemingly going through them every now and then.

The side effect of being a monster goalie with good movement is a big load of wear and tear on the hips and knees, often needing corrective surgery (Bishop, Demko etc)

[Hot_Flatus]

Regardless of injuries, this is very indicative of the Flames in general. Ice cold for a month, hot for a month and back to cold again. There's little doubt in my mind that even if this losing now continues, the team will somehow be in the playoff conversation come trade deadline time whether they deserve it or not.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A lot of people are missing the point. With other goalies I’ve said “maybe the save percentage is low but you have to actually look at the game and the goals that were scored to see if the goalie was good or not”. And been told “nah, save percentage is save percentage”. Except that wasn’t for a fan favorite goalie. So I expected people to (correctly) explain Wolf’s save percentage as a function of the situation and the team in front of him. The point being, this can also apply to any goalie’s individual game, or seven a string of games. Markstrom has generally been good this season but has a poor save percentage and a losing record. For the most part because of the team and not his own performance.

Isn't the league average SV% now down to %.902 or something? People do have a flawed view of what a good SV% number is based on the reality league the last year or two.

Wolf was good enough that the team should have got back into it. Nothing you can do about the 2 goals that got by him last night.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

People do have a flawed view of what a good SV% number is based on the reality league the last year or two.

They have a flawed view on it also because it doesn't always tell the story.

Obviously if a goalie has a rough game his save percentage isn't going to be pretty. But he can also have a good game and a sub .900 save percentage. Getting say 25 shots and allowing 3 goals isn't really bad unless the majority were bad goals.

Markstrom's game against Dallas is a good example. Had nobody known what his save percentage was they would say he had a good game or was "fine". But because he only ended up getting 16 shots and allowed 2 goals and 1 penalty shot it looks bad because it ended up .812.

That's why GSAx is more respected than GSAA. GSAx takes shot location into consideration while GSAA is just based on save percentage.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by direwolf

This team wildly inconsistent. They don't seem to have trouble beating top teams like the Stars and Knights, and I thought they played a strong against the Avs. And then they turn around and lose to a bottom feeder like the Wild.

I mentioned this after beating those teams. The top teams are never my concern with this group. It's that first game against an opponent that doesn't get them revved up to prove themselves against that'll disappoint you.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by IceBergYYC

Oettinger first 2 NHL starts:
W, 20/23, 59:52
W, 23/26, 59:57
Quick:
W, 15/17, 59:52
L, 14/18, 34:52
Rask:
W, 30/32, 60:00
W, 20/23, 60:00
Wolf:
W, 23/24, 59:54
L, 34/38, 59:45

But yeah, lets write him off. 7th round, 214th overall, absolute bust

Wow, Quick was sheltered by that team.