[PGT] Markstrom with a 37-save shutout over Montreal!

[dammage79]

I know its likely falling on deaf ears but there's two teams on the ice. I thought the Vancouver, MTL and Toronto games all showed that Flames can hang in the division. All while not playing their best at times so early on. Its why we got Markstrom. A major piece. Teams grow confidence when they're back doesn't break on wonky goals like we have endured for a decade plus.

Accept the fact that other teams might be better this year. Its gonna help. MTL and ztoronto look really good this year. But then again, so do the Flames. Just need to settle in.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

Jacob Markstrom ladies and gentlemen. Such a nice gift from the Vancouver Canucks.

Loved Backlund vs. Gallagher tonight from the opening whistle. The faceoff head battles, Gallagher baiting then embellishing on Backlunds crosscheck. The guy is a super pest on Matthew's level.

Perfect that the empty netter was a little payback with Backlund faking the shot on Gallagher before scoring.

The Flames had 33 shots on goal, this wasn't some one sided game. Great goaltending from both guys.

And missed the net AT LEAST 5 or 6 times, from right in front, on glorious chances.

They were outchanced, but it wasn't nearly as one-sided as some are trying to make it out to be.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

I wish we could talk about a good game with some flaws or a bad game with some redeeming qualities without the need to pick an extreme.


Markstrom was unreal but high-danger chances were 17-4 for Montreal - let's not sugarcoat that. You need your goalie to steal a few and that was one of them - let's hope they bump the slump and play better next game.

if they were, then the counting of that stat is deeply flawed

[868904]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

if they were, then the counting of that stat is deeply flawed

It looks like the NHL only counted the Flames breakaways as "high danger chances" cause I swear the Flames had at least that in breakaways.

Who counts these chances? Is this like the shot count in home arenas?

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

if they were, then the counting of that stat is deeply flawed

Here's where the definition comes from: http://blog.war-on-ice.com/new-defin...ces/index.html. It's based on shot locations and timing relative to other events (rebounds and shots off the rush are both more dangerous).


There's definitely some noise in a single-game sample like that, but my eye test had Montreal with a clear advantage overall. Scoring chances overall were 37-19 which feels like a more accurate picture to me. Also keep in mind that includes blocked and missed shots, and the Habs had 26 of those. If Tanev blocks a dangerous shot, it's a great play but it still counts as a scoring chance. I think plays like that contribute to the numbers feeling wrong - it's easy to see a block and remember it as the Flames defending well, even though it was the result of Montreal carrying the play for a shift.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

Here's where the definition comes from: http://blog.war-on-ice.com/new-defin...ces/index.html. It's based on shot locations and timing relative to other events (rebounds and shots off the rush are both more dangerous).


There's definitely some noise in a single-game sample like that, but my eye test had Montreal with a clear advantage overall. Scoring chances overall were 37-19 which feels like a more accurate picture to me. Also keep in mind that includes blocked and missed shots, and the Habs had 26 of those. If Tanev blocks a dangerous shot, it's a great play but it still counts as a scoring chance. I think plays like that contribute to the numbers feeling wrong - it's easy to see a block and remember it as the Flames defending well, even though it was the result of Montreal carrying the play for a shift.

Really eh?

Just my opinion, but in no way would i say that the Habs had twice as many good scoring chances than the Flames. In fact I would have thought it almost even....though it felt worse IMO because in the 2nd they had so many clumped together.

Interesting.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

Here's where the definition comes from: http://blog.war-on-ice.com/new-defin...ces/index.html. It's based on shot locations and timing relative to other events (rebounds and shots off the rush are both more dangerous).


There's definitely some noise in a single-game sample like that, but my eye test had Montreal with a clear advantage overall. Scoring chances overall were 37-19 which feels like a more accurate picture to me. Also keep in mind that includes blocked and missed shots, and the Habs had 26 of those. If Tanev blocks a dangerous shot, it's a great play but it still counts as a scoring chance. I think plays like that contribute to the numbers feeling wrong - it's easy to see a block and remember it as the Flames defending well, even though it was the result of Montreal carrying the play for a shift.

That definition is pretty lacking. Especially “rush shots” (which frankly I see as less dangerous than a chance off the cycle).

[Burning Beard]

Remember last year vs Dallas when it seemed like no Flames player was willing to block any shots?

If they continue playing with the drive to block shots and put the body on the line that may just be the next step this group needs to take. Hope it continues.

Also, thanks again for Markstrom and Tanev Canuckleheads

[AC]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1355962164436062208

[Enoch Root]

^ exactly - head contact was unavoidable, because KK was bent forward with his head down. Physically impossible for Dube to hit anything but his head. And he didn't have time to bail, it was a bang bang play.

If that hit warrants discipline, then physical contact will be completely eliminated from the game

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by getbak

https://twitter.com/user/status/1355915462362636289

Wow, I can't believe they made the right call. Kotkaniemi moved before Dube could react. There was not chance to avoid getting him in the head.

I am just so used to the NHL punishing it every time that I was expecting a fine at the very least.

[GioforPM]

I didn’t even think head was the principal point of contact.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Looks like my birthday wish magic paid off! You're welcome.

I'm not going to get into any of the discussion points this thread has put forward, they've been talked about enough already.

However, can we talk yet again about how scary Weber's shot is? Here's the damage recap from just this game:

-Almost shattered Valimaki's forearm THROUGH the padding
-Almost injured Anderson's knee THROUGH the padding
-Hit a crossbar so hard he moved the entire net and left a dent
-Shattered a player's stick
-Shattered the skate blade of Nordstrom


Seriously, it should be listed as a lethal weapon. I honestly worry he's going to kill someone one day with that shot.

I've definitely thought that Shea Weber has been sandbagging the 'Hardest Shot' competition at the ASG.

That guy's slapper is insane. They've gotta inspect his stick for rocket fuel or something.

When they put those electronics in the pucks they've got to be wondering if one of those things is just going to fly apart after Weber is hitting it.

"Partial goal awarded because an eighth of the puck crossed the line after it literally disintegrated from being shot by Shea Weber."

That being said, all Hail Markstrom. That guy was outstanding.

After all of the Goaltending nonsense this team has been subjected to it is wonderful having him back there.

Seriously, I havent felt this way about a goaltender since vintage Kipper when you could see the other team going down the ice and you never got that feeling of panic because you know who is back there and that 'hes got this.'

[N-E-B]

I’m mildly surprised there’s no hearing for Dube. I thought we might see a one game suspension. Really glad there isn’t as I absolutely believe there was no intent from Dube.

Unfortunate collision and thankfully no one was seriously hurt.

[tvp2003]

Under the rules, it’s an illegal check to the head if the head is the principal point of contact AND the contact was avoidable. You have to meet both criteria; just because there is head contact doesn’t mean it’s illegal.

Here is the Sammy Blais suspension, which Craig Button referenced. He got two games: https://www.nhl.com/video/blais-susp...0360/c-7240044

That hit is similar to one involving McDavid — he also got two games: https://www.nhl.com/video/mcdavid-su...360/c-66120603

In this case I think Dube connects with Kotkaniemi’s core as much as any head contact. I also agree it may not have been avoidable — Kotkaniemi starts to accelerate away from Tkachuk right before Dube gets there.

[Locke]

Is there any video of the hit? I want to see this again.

[AC]

Here's the dirty butt-end by Suzuki to Backlund's stomach:

https://streamable.com/bzi8uj

[browna]

Originally Posted by AC

Here's the dirty butt-end by Suzuki to Backlund's stomach:

https://streamable.com/bzi8uj

Well Backlund lead with the head on the draw on the opening face off and one other one a bit later, so am sure the Habs took note of that by the third.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Locke

Is there any video of the hit? I want to see this again.

The players involved never saw it the first time. Why should you get to see it twice?

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Looks like my birthday wish magic paid off! You're welcome.

I'm not going to get into any of the discussion points this thread has put forward, they've been talked about enough already.

However, can we talk yet again about how scary Weber's shot is? Here's the damage recap from just this game:

-Almost shattered Valimaki's forearm THROUGH the padding
-Almost injured Anderson's knee THROUGH the padding
-Hit a crossbar so hard he moved the entire net and left a dent
-Shattered a player's stick
-Shattered the skate blade of Nordstrom


Seriously, it should be listed as a lethal weapon. I honestly worry he's going to kill someone one day with that shot.

He's still no Macinnis. Ask Roy as he cowered away in the finals.