[PGT] Caps 4 Flames 3 OT loss

[NewFan]

I think our defence system doesn't work well for the last few games. D tries to stop other team at the blue line, but when other team dump and chase, D usually need to battle for puck. And forwards doesn,t help much and wait the D chip the puck along the boards and leave the zone too early to tip it. Yesterday Gio tried to shoot the puck to boards even our forward was open.

[Brick]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Come on. S/O losses aren’t real losses. It was a tie game in which the Flames dominated the OT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Loser points are for losers.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Ok, so I'm just going to suggest this once. Improve your tone. It's unnecessary.

Tone has nothing to do with this. It's a stupid question. PERIOD! What if Smith turns it around? Great, I will happily eat crow. But that is highly unlikely given his career performance and his age. What the hell is wrong with demanding a higher expectation and demanding actual improvement?



Maybe another question is, what will happen from your perspective if Smith continues to mess the bed? Will you be objective enough to look past the jersey and see that every player that dons the Flames jersey is not perfect and it is acceptable to question them, and the management team that brought them in? Is that possible, because to date I'm not sure that is a possibility?

I meant, what happens to your certain rhetoric on this subject if Smith proves you wrong? Will you eat crow? No, because all you do is say things with 100% certainty and then fail to be accountable when your statements are proven wrong, or not entirely true.

I will happily eat crow. But I will note my "tunnel vision" is usually more on the mark than not. I was all over firing Gulutzan long before it became obvious it was needed by most. I was all over firing Troy Brouwer into the sun before it became a thing. I was all over TJ Brodie needs to go before people finally wisened up to his ineffective play turned the tide against him. If Mike Smith comes back and turns into a goaltender who can post a S% north of .920 (average in the NHL) I will happily come back and declare him a satisfactory goaltender for the Flames. Will you came back and say that I was right if he continues to mess the sheets and the Flames waste another year "Waiting for Guffman?" Or will you just find yet another excuse to use as you blindly follow whatever management lays out there for the fans to lap up?

I think at this point you assume far too much about how Treliving operates, and it blinds you to the reality of the situation. He is all about asset management, and while I agree that he hasn't adequately addressed goaltending to date, I think his plan is to create a deep and balanced team that doesn't overpay any one position. Maybe that's a fault to build a team that way. Time will tell. I think he's been banking on one of the goaltending prospects to emerge as a legitimate NHL starter and hasn't gone after the big fish on a long term deal because he doesn't want to block the path to the NHL for a cheaper option.

Treliving is not about asset management. Any GM who gives a crap about asset management does not chase bad asset after bad asset, and give up high picks to get them. You want to know why the minor league affiliate has such a crappy team? Because Treliving has doled out first round pick after first round pick on players that haven't been difference makers. Look at Stockton, then the results of the big team, and tell me if the juice was worth the squeeze? Treliving paid through the nose for mediocre players, instead of going all in on a difference maker. Think about where this team would be with MA Fleury instead of Mike Smith, and where Las Vegas would be with Mike Smith instead of MA Fleury? I was not a supporter of bringing in Fleury because of asset management, but giving up what they did for Smith, they would have been much better off paying more for a proven quantity.

Also, if you are certain that he doesn't want to go for proven veteran options who have some gravitas to their career, then why did he sign James Neal?

One of the few signings I can say I liked, and have been consistent in defending, if you hadn't noticed. James Neal will turn his game around once Bill Peters stops using the line-o-matic blender to set his lines. Give him a chance to learn how to play with his line mates, and wait for the chemistry to generate profit. I would say that a perfect line would be Bennett-Jankowski-Neal, but it seems more important to get Derek Ryan ice time than guys that could actually improve this hockey team. Again, give players with track records chance to improve the club rather than garbage players who are barely hanging on. This is the equivalence of bringing in John Tonelli and Doug Risebrough, then playing Jamie Hislop or Dave Hindmarsh ahead of them.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Brick

Loser points are for losers.

Against the eastern conference loser points are great

[zamler]

Loser points get teams into the playoffs. Also what idiot made the thread title we lost in a shootout.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Brick

Loser points are for losers.

No. S/O points are stupid. There is no "loser" of the game in a shootout—both teams play the game and score the same number of goals.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by Itse

But I can't help but wonder why are we rolling the dice on an unproven coach, when Darryl Sutter was available. His WORST stretch as a head coach was when he made the playoffs with the Sharks 4/4 times and won a round twice....makint that one "weak" stretch better than everything the Flames have done without Darryl since 1990.

I don't understand this thinking and I've seen it a number of times now. If they wanted Darryl Sutter, they would have hired Darryl Sutter. It wasn't an error on their part. It wasn't a mistake. They didn't want Darryl Sutter.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

I don't understand this thinking and I've seen it a number of times now. If they wanted Darryl Sutter, they would have hired Darryl Sutter. It wasn't an error on their part. It wasn't a mistake. They didn't want Darryl Sutter.

Or Darryl didn't want them.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Or Darryl didn't want them.

Some of Darryl's comments after the fact intimated that he would have been interested.

[jayswin]

Yeah, I think he mentioned somewhere (or maybe it was an insider) that he really wanted the Flames head coaching position.

[zamler]

Hasn't it already been confirmed that Tre was only interested in Peters?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Yeah, I think he mentioned somewhere (or maybe it was an insider) that he really wanted the Flames head coaching position.

“really wanted” it is probably exaggeration, but he definitely expressed interest.

But as was said, Treliving didn’t want him. Wasn’t a mistake or an oversight.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

I don't understand this thinking and I've seen it a number of times now. If they wanted Darryl Sutter, they would have hired Darryl Sutter. It wasn't an error on their part. It wasn't a mistake. They didn't want Darryl Sutter.

The debate is that they should have wanted Darryl Sutter. Is anyone arguing that they somehow forgot he existed?

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Yeah, I think he mentioned somewhere (or maybe it was an insider) that he really wanted the Flames head coaching position.

I thought it was that one of his brothers mentioned it on the radio that he was hoping the Flames would call. I myself didn't hear it because I don't live in Calgary but I remember someone on here mentioning it.

[kukkudo]

Sutter is open to coaching the Flames or Oilers. Thinks both teams having good coaches right now. Treliving wanted Peters plain and simple.

[Toonage]

Yes Darryl said he would be interested in coaching the Flames again.

Yes Treliving only wanted Peters otherwise GG would still be the coach.

Let's move on.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Brick

Loser points are for losers.

such a dumb comment...especially when the team ties it up in the last minute

Not to mention it was their first "loser point" of the season...their first shootout game since mid last season

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by dino7c

such a dumb comment...especially when the team ties it up in the last minute

Not to mention it was their first "loser point" of the season...their first shootout game since mid last season

Maybe a better term would be consolation point.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

I don't understand this thinking and I've seen it a number of times now. If they wanted Darryl Sutter, they would have hired Darryl Sutter. It wasn't an error on their part. It wasn't a mistake. They didn't want Darryl Sutter.

I don't get this comment.

Yes, obviously they didn't want Sutter because they didn't hire him even though he was available.

I was questioning their decision and their reasoning.

To me, hiring Peters looked like shiny toy syndrome, overvaluing age and potential and the possibility of finding a new top coach, and undervaluing track record and experience.

I really hope they're right about Peters, but I don't like it that they took this risk in this situation. We're a franchise desperate for playoff success and entering our prime years for the current core. This isn't the time to experiment.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Brick

Loser points are for losers.

The point for a game that ends in a tie has always been a part of the game.

The only point that is superfluous is the point for winning a skills competition because for some reason North Americans can’t stomach a tie.

The extra point is for a skills competition.