[PGT] Flames lose 4-3 to Blackhawks

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't even post in post game threads anymore. What ticked me off about this one was that this team playing like absolute trash against an AHL calibre roster they have no business losing to. I'm not expecting the playoffs or anything but there's just no way to sugarcoat how bad this loss was.

Fair enough, But there are quite a few posters who should be happy with the Flames ensuring a loss with bad play.

[GaiJin]

It's time to replace the firemans helmet for hardest working player with a Leeman jersey for lack of production.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Voicing things in hindsight? I said this was exactly how the team would look under Huska before he got hired. Also, Vladar was not good in that mid week game and if Saros had not been way off his start we would have lost that game. Why would I have complained if Huberdeau who has been playing great lately would have been out there? Your post is just ridiculous, try harder.

What I meant by hindsight was that your comments were made after they didn't tie the game. The Flames are currently 8th in the NHL in win percentage when they're trailing going into the 3rd period. If Huska is to blame for not playing Huberdeau, then he should get credit for the comebacks as well.

Vladar still had a .909sv%. He gave them a chance to win. And since we're speculating on what could've happened Huberdeau could've been gassed in the last minute, or given the puck away or whatever leading to the same result.

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Everything you said I just said there is absolutely true. Are those things not in control of the coach? I mean thanks for proving my point there guy, well done.

The system is under the coach's control, but the implementation is in the control of the players. IMO this version of the Flames is a lot more exciting, and creative offensively than last year under Sutter. You've also had a bias against Huska since he was hired.

Finally, I've been arguing that blaming the coach for everything is misguided, and we did that with Hartley, Gulutzan, Peters, Ward, and Sutter in recent memory. It's an easy solution to get a new HC every 2 years. This team's performance is product of mediocre roster construction rather than coaching.

[Goriders]

I PVR’d the game and just finished watching.

Just wanted to clarify something. Did the Flames just lose to an AHL team?

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

I'm of the exact opposite opinion.

Yes, get the additional picks - but there is no more valuable piece than the Flames own first round pick.

The Flames need to get as close to 1st overall as possible, and then hope for the best when it comes to the lottery.

They''re not very good at sucking very bad, but that's not a bad plan. Some might not like it but the Flames deserve to get a good player. Plus we need to build around a new team not the old guard.

[Goriders]

I have a feeling that this game will open the trading floodgates.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

What I meant by hindsight was that your comments were made after they didn't tie the game. The Flames are currently 8th in the NHL in win percentage when they're trailing going into the 3rd period. If Huska is to blame for not playing Huberdeau, then he should get credit for the comebacks as well.

Vladar still had a .909sv%. He gave them a chance to win. And since we're speculating on what could've happened Huberdeau could've been gassed in the last minute, or given the puck away or whatever leading to the same result.



The system is under the coach's control, but the implementation is in the control of the players. IMO this version of the Flames is a lot more exciting, and creative offensively than last year under Sutter. You've also had a bias against Huska since he was hired.

Finally, I've been arguing that blaming the coach for everything is misguided, and we did that with Hartley, Gulutzan, Peters, Ward, and Sutter in recent memory. It's an easy solution to get a new HC every 2 years. This team's performance is product of mediocre roster construction rather than coaching.

Vladar had a .800 sv percentage today.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I have a feeling that this game will open the trading floodgates.

I have a feeling that this game will do nothing to open the trading floodgates.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I have a feeling that this game will open the trading floodgates.

Unlikely. Other GMs are aware of the pressure on Conroy to trade a huge number of UFAs in a tight market and his inexperience and are seriously lowballing him with their offers. He needs to be patient and wait for other GMs to be as desperate as he is.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Vladar had a .800 sv percentage today.

Yes, and dissentowner was referencing the game against NSH mid-week. I'm pretty sure it was a .909 but I could be misremembering it, I thought it was 30 saves on 33 shots for Vladar.

[Ferarri]

While I realize Maloney’s comments at the intermission may be elusive due to the fact that they don’t want to release their internal strategy to the media, it does seem rather strange what he is selling to fans. I mean to say we like the personnel on this team and we would like to keep everyone if we didn’t have cap implications etc is a bit of a head scratcher. Why not just be vague and say we are looking at all of our options and obviously we are not naive to the fact of where we sit in the standings.

Once again, I would hope there actually is an internal strategy where they realize that it’s time to sell off assets, but it does make you wonder at times given how inept this organization has been over the years.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Ferarri

While I realize Maloney’s comments at the intermission may be elusive due to the fact that they don’t want to release their internal strategy to the media, it does seem rather strange what he is selling to fans. I mean to say we like the personnel on this team and we would like to keep everyone if we didn’t have cap implications etc is a bit of a head scratcher. Why not just be vague and say we are looking at all of our options and obviously we are not naive to the fact of where we sit in the standings.

Once again, I would hope there actually is an internal strategy where they realize that it’s time to sell off assets, but it does make you wonder at times given how inept this organization has been over the years.

I think it's reasonable communication.

Being perceived, internally and externally, as a team where players are going to be leaving is basically a euphemism for being a losing team. I'm a strong believer that these perceptions, if they settle around a team, are very hard to shake.

Ultimately I think that hurts you in multiple ways. So no concessions to the public... you present yourself as a competing team until the end.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I have a feeling that this game will open the trading floodgates.

If teams were meeting Conroy's asking price the gates would already be open.

Hopefully a pathetic loss to the hawks doesn't cause Conroy to cave to other GMs low offers.

[Hockey_Ninja]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I have a feeling that this game will open the trading floodgates.

Doubt it. Trades take time and we’re still a bit aways from the deadline. The only thing this loss did was continue to show that the team as assembled isn’t good enough but I’m pretty sure management already knows that

[FanIn80]

Win against the teams we shouldn't be able to beat.
Lose against the teams we should be able to beat.

Calgary Flames Hockey, 1980-2024 ('86, '89, '04 excluded).

[ReinhartonD]

On the one hand this game drops us below NHL .500, which sucks, on the other hand, we are percentage-wise now below Minnesota and the Habs, and closing in on Buffalo. Based on points percentage if the draft order were determined by today's standings, we'd be 7th. Top 5 could happen...

(and no, I don't cheer for losses or a losing culture... but realistic and forward-thinking GM behaviour)

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I think it's reasonable communication.

Being perceived, internally and externally, as a team where players are going to be leaving is basically a euphemism for being a losing team. I'm a strong believer that these perceptions, if they settle around a team, are very hard to shake.

Ultimately I think that hurts you in multiple ways. So no concessions to the public... you present yourself as a competing team until the end.

It's just been a problem for a while, the perception that some players held the cards. From the outside it's kind of hard to tell if it was mutual or not, but it kind of put the Flames in a position of weakness.

It is in the best interest of the Flames lean towards a completely different core, one that is brought and molded into a solid team. We need a team with a certain identity, fast, skilled whatever they decide but a team that grows together works hard and wants to be here. I believe that although Treliving meant well some of the players brought in had too much influence on what should have been a solid core group.

Players talking about leaving openly in public in the beginning put Conroy in a tough spot, I am glad Backlund stood up and put a lid on it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I think it's reasonable communication.

Being perceived, internally and externally, as a team where players are going to be leaving is basically a euphemism for being a losing team. I'm a strong believer that these perceptions, if they settle around a team, are very hard to shake.

Ultimately I think that hurts you in multiple ways. So no concessions to the public... you present yourself as a competing team until the end.

Also there are several players who will be with the team for years, both veterans and kids. You have to sell faith in them.

Plus they still have tickets to sell right now.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Win against the teams we shouldn't be able to beat.
Lose against the teams we should be able to beat.

Calgary Flames Hockey, 1980-2024 ('86, '89, '04 excluded).

'04 still fits that description

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Win against the teams we shouldn't be able to beat.
Lose against the teams we should be able to beat.

Calgary Flames Hockey, 1980-2024 ('86, '89, '04 excluded).

'04 included. They were huge underdogs in all of those series.