Flames Are A Bottom Feeder Without Kipper?

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

They're a bottom feeder without Backlund, losing him really hurt.

I hope you're joking..

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by zamler

Suppose you are correct and the Flames are a playoff team with good goaltending. Why doesn't this club have a trusted backup goalie? At some point you had to know that Kipper was either going to get injured, or his play was going to fall off.

Having said that, I don't agree with you at all, the Flames are giving up grade-A scoring chances, we are way too soft in our own zone no goalie is going to fix that.

Every team gives up grade A scoring chances.

Are you saying that the Flames give up more grade A scoring chances than other teams despite giving up fewer shots than any other WC team except one?

....and do they give up the most grade A scoring chances of every WC team to justify being dead last in goals against per game?

If it's true, its' true but I sure would like to see the stats to back that one up. Quality of scoring chances is a tough stat to get a handle on though, can be quite subjective.

[kyuss275]

Defensive breakdowns are as much as a problem as the goaltending.

As for control of play , do you really count a game like last night when a team goes up 4 and has ken Hitchcock as coach. Do you think he told his team at the first intermission to keep on attacking? It looked like they went into a more defensive mode after the first. I am sure without looking back at past results that there a couple of games like last night. Flames have looked great when opposing team played the night before, other than that they have been kind of meh.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Are you saying that the Flames give up more grade A scoring chances than other teams despite giving up fewer shots than any other WC team except one?

Sure looks that way to me. Not just this year, but going back a few years as well. I don't really care about shots against that is a very misleading stat, when your D is butter soft and the forward don't help or are clueless in their own zone, the goalie is going to face point blank chances. Last game we saw the team literally stand around and watch as St. Louis scored, no goalie is going to compensate for that.

...and I can't state this enough. Suppose you're correct and the team just needs good goaltending. So, what excuse is there that we don't have it? You play Kipper almost every game for years on end, you are not going to develop a good backup, it's not possible. So if you're not going to give your backup a chance to develop, you bring in a veteran and play him 25-30 games/season. But that is not the mentality here, it has always been lean on Kipper as hard as possible, but such a strategy can't last forever. It's just stupid management honestly.

[GirlySports]

The Flames defense is butter soft by what comparisons? When I watch games around the league, I see every defense as butter soft (by our definition of watching hockey in the past). This Avs/Oilers game going on now, has a defenseman even made a hit?


A defender can't interfere, can't grab a jersey, can't stick his stick in someone's feet, can't raise his stick parallel to the ice, can't push or cross check a guy standing in front of his goalie.

This is a butter soft league now. Scott Stevens would be an AHLer.

[zamler]

Butter soft is when you let your goalie get run over and you do nothing about it, or let players get to pucks in front of the net with ease. The Flames are the least penalized team in the league and it's not because of stellar discipline. You can be a physical team without hooking and grabbing, geeze.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I must not be very adept at getting my point across when I make big long posts like the above.

You can argue each individual player, whether they are elite, useless, old, young, talented, pluggish, etc, until the cows come home.

You can argue how weak they are at center, how small the team is, how soft physically they are, how little depth they may or may not have, until you're blue in the face.

The point remains, the stats I posted (as well as my eyeballs from watching, IMO) show a team that:

- controls a lot of the play
- out shoots the opposition regularly
- scores more than it's share of goals

...yet is being victimized mainly by sub par goaltending so far this season.

This is not a bottom feeding team that's being saved from cellar dwelling by Kipper or any other goalie.

This is actually a pretty good hockey team that is being held back by the underwhelming performance by it's goaltending collective so far this season.

Am I right?

A lot of the goals against are getting scored whether it is Kipper, Irving or Patrick Roy at his peak. SJ had a ton of easy tap in/guys wide open goals, same with Anaheim, even in the Dallas win those are goals more on the defense leaving guys wide open than goaltending, awful giveaways hurt yesterday, the Chicago game isn't likely to change with goaltending change. Those are the games I remember off the top of my head. The Flames aren't getting great goaltending this year but they are giving up grade A, easy to convert scoring chances as well that hurt the goaltending stats.

[zamler]

But Moon you can't touch other players, this is the butter soft NHL. Other teams manage to do it somehow though, must be the Refs are against us.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by zamler

Sure looks that way to me. Not just this year, but going back a few years as well. I don't really care about shots against that is a very misleading stat, when your D is butter soft and the forward don't help or are clueless in their own zone, the goalie is going to face point blank chances. Last game we saw the team literally stand around and watch as St. Louis scored, no goalie is going to compensate for that.

Funny thing about the way things look to people sometimes, is that they see what they want to see. Yes, I see the Flames giving up grade A scoring chances, but I see every team giving up grade A scoring chances.

I have a hard time believing that the Flames are giving up more legit scoring chances than anybody else despite giving up the 2nd fewest shots per game in the Conference. Like I said earlier, if someone can prove it to me, I am all ears.

Originally Posted by zamler

...and I can't state this enough. Suppose you're correct and the team just needs good goaltending. So, what excuse is there that we don't have it? You play Kipper almost every game for years on end, you are not going to develop a good backup, it's not possible. So if you're not going to give your backup a chance to develop, you bring in a veteran and play him 25-30 games/season. But that is not the mentality here, it has always been lean on Kipper as hard as possible, but such a strategy can't last forever. It's just stupid management honestly.

I am in total agreement with you on this, and even stated in another thread that it's quite embarrassing that this organization didn't figure out away to develop even one NHL caliber goaltender in the 10 years Kipper has been at the helm.

[zamler]

Roof-Daddy I fear you are trying to convince yourself that Calgary is really a very good team except in net, but honestly I don't think they are. The potential is there though, something I didn't see much of or at all in the Brent Sutter era.

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I am in total agreement with you on this, and even stated in another thread that it's quite embarrassing that this organization didn't figure out away to develop even one NHL caliber goaltender in the 10 years Kipper has been at the helm.

I feel the same way about not getting a quality center to play with Iggy, in fact to me this is even more embarrassing.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by zamler

Roof-Daddy I fear you are trying to convince yourself that Calgary is really a very good team except in net, but honestly I don't think they are. The potential is there though, something I didn't see much of or at all in the Brent Sutter era.

No, not a chance. This thread just stemmed from the repeated notion that the Flames are the worst team in the league without Kiprusoff. I even stated in the OP that I realize they are not a Cup contender, but also that they are not complete crap being held up by elite goaltending.

If anything, right now they are being held back by sub standard goaltending. Not held back from being elite, but held back from legitimately competing for a playoff spot.

Originally Posted by zamler

I feel the same way about not getting a quality center to play with Iggy, in fact to me this is even more embarrassing.

Agreed on this as well.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

No, not a chance. This thread just stemmed from the repeated notion that the Flames are the worst team in the league without Kiprusoff.

The last couple of years I thought for sure Calgary was bottom 3 without Kipper. I am not sure this year, probably not but are we a playoff team with Kipper at the top of his game? Iffy to me, a wait and see attitude. One thing for sure, if Iginla is not going to get it going like right away, we're not making the playoffs. You can't have your supposed #1 player 113th in points.

[REDVAN]

Kipper sucks and the Flames are bottom feeder with any goalie in net!

[GirlySports]

zamler: you should watch the Eastern Conference, nobody hits anybody!

I still have confidence in the Flames defense. Yes it was a bad game on Friday after a good game on Wednesday. And they defended well against the Wild in that 1-1 tie.

We'll see how they play tomorrow!

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

zamler: you should watch the Eastern Conference, nobody hits anybody!

I still have confidence in the Flames defense. Yes it was a bad game on Friday after a good game on Wednesday. And they defended well against the Wild in that 1-1 tie.

We'll see how they play tomorrow!

It's not so much the defence as it is the forwards play in their own zone. They miss a lot of assignments .

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

zamler: you should watch the Eastern Conference, nobody hits anybody!

I still have confidence in the Flames defense. Yes it was a bad game on Friday after a good game on Wednesday. And they defended well against the Wild in that 1-1 tie.

We'll see how they play tomorrow!

Exactly, flames only show any sort of quality playing crappy or tired teams. Otherwise, it is basically men against boys against western conference playoff teams (nux, blues).

Flames will likely get their arse kicked by the stars, who have a marginally better roster, but are wrested.

Intellectual honesty vs fanboy optimism is the way I look at it.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The Flames defense is butter soft by what comparisons? When I watch games around the league, I see every defense as butter soft (by our definition of watching hockey in the past). This Avs/Oilers game going on now, has a defenseman even made a hit?


A defender can't interfere, can't grab a jersey, can't stick his stick in someone's feet, can't raise his stick parallel to the ice, can't push or cross check a guy standing in front of his goalie.

This is a butter soft league now. Scott Stevens would be an AHLer.

Have the Flames even attempted an NHL hit this season? We are so small.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The Flames defense is butter soft by what comparisons? When I watch games around the league, I see every defense as butter soft (by our definition of watching hockey in the past). This Avs/Oilers game going on now, has a defenseman even made a hit?


A defender can't interfere, can't grab a jersey, can't stick his stick in someone's feet, can't raise his stick parallel to the ice, can't push or cross check a guy standing in front of his goalie.

This is a butter soft league now. Scott Stevens would be an AHLer.

I disagree. I see teams unable to battle on the boards down low lose games without fail.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Ok, lots of good points made so far, but I need to weigh in.

The problem with the Flames under Sutter was that they would always win by the skin of their teeth. When they had the lead they would cling to it for dear life and the other team would dominate the play regularly. Somehow Kipper would make save after save and keep the team in it. When the Flames fell behind at all in the game you could write it up as a loss almost immediately. They had no push back and no offensive creativity or prowess. Incredibly weak offensive game overall, but not because of talent.

Now we come to this year and Hartley is letting them loose, but instead of it resembling the Keenan era where the Flames gave up a ton of shots against, the Flames have actually found a way to keep the shots against down AND dictate the play even when they have the lead. No longer is it assumed that the Flames will lose if they go down a goal or even two.

BUT, so far every goaltender is under .900 for save percentage. If you can't count on at least that level, you will never win in the NHL.

I recognize that the Flames have been guilty of some poor periods here and there, or giving up some bad giveaways now and then, but if you were to watch any team in the NHL (maybe except Boston at the moment) you would see the exact same thing. The point is the goalie should bail your team out now and then.

I can't even think of the last time our goalies have made a difference in a win, but I can sure point out the difference they've been making in our losses. I think the OP has it nailed on the head.

[afc wimbledon]

It is utterly useless to look at 10 or 15 winning games and decide a team, that hasn't substantially changed from last year, is obviously in good shape save the goalie, it makes even less sense when they are still losing much the same as last year.

All teams ebb and flow, all teams go through good and bad stretches of scoring, defence or netminding, the reason the flames are a non playoff team is they don't have enough depth across the board for the team to cover its weakness, a team getting crappy goal needs the defense to step up and cut down on the shots or the offence to score more, the Flames don't have that level of depth.