[PGT] Flames fall 3-2 in shootout to Chicago.

[moon]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

The root cause of a lot of deadly GA has not been the forwards flying the zone and the crap that a lot of people say. Again, the 5 hole goal the game before last was inexcusable. The game winner was Bouwmeester whiffing then letting the guy walk out. And two instances of Butler throwing the puck out brutally ... this is not a result of risk taking resulting in ignoring the defensive game. This is awful defensive brain farts. Plays that individuals make which are very bad individual costly decisions. Surely you can see that. And this decision making is something I believe Hartley can respond to more effectively than the last guy. I think he can add O to the mix and not at the expense of D

I have seen a ton of guys wide open in the Flames zone, guys easily walking around the defensemen, tons of easy opportunities for the late guy hanging back and not getting picked up as well.

The Flames have had some bad goaltending but also some luck with not having more goals scored against them with the chances and opportunities they have left wide open.

[Sakari]

As I saw a Chicago fans post on NHL.com...

Best 1-3-2 team EVER.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by moon

LOL

That is your argument? When and if guys start doing x? How about when Hudler and Stempniak return to their usual ways you "Flames are awesome" folk will eat your words? I don't have to use that crap logic because I can just use the poor play on the ice and not resort to fantasy maybe's.



Sure has been evident on the ice so far.



Ridiculously awesome? This is a joke post right?

What I'm saying is Iginla and Cammalleri haven't even begun to contribute to the offense of the team, and already the supporting cast has shown a more potent offense than last year's squad altogether. And you know those two will shake it. It's just a matter of time.

Feel free to doubt that they'll come around and call it fantasy chatter, but 11 consecutive years says otherwise, and Cammalleri's recent history, despite showing a small decline (on a pretty horrid mtl team), still doesn't say he's nearly as bad a producer as he's been here so far.

Take the 3 goals/game average the team is putting in right now with the added offense of a producing Iggy/Cammy, and the production issue will be out the window pretty quick.

And yeah, last night was pretty ridiculously awesome, if you ask me. Apparently if you ask just about anybody that actually watched that game from a fan perspective. Boo hoo, so the hawks took the coin flip in the end and their goalie played superhuman. It doesn't take away what the Flames did as a team. I saw a dominant, relentless team. They've been that way since playing the Oilers. Ffs, Bouwmeester is Actually playing up to his worth. And there's complaining?

Unless you're really taking the results/standings personally, when it's been repeatedly claimed on here that they're not a bonafide playoff team by the majority of people anyways, how can you complain about how they're playing right now?!..

I just.. don't...

[moon]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

What I'm saying is Iginla and Cammalleri haven't even begun to contribute to the offense of the team, and already the supporting cast has shown a more potent offense than last year's squad altogether. And you know those two will shake it. It's just a matter of time.

Feel free to doubt that they'll come around and call it fantasy chatter, but 11 consecutive years says otherwise, and Cammalleri's recent history, despite showing a small decline (on a pretty horrid mtl team), still doesn't say he's nearly as bad a producer as he's been here so far.

It seems a little unfair to assume that Iginla and Cammalieri will return to their norms but the secondary guys won't return to theirs and keep scoring at the pace they are. Sure Iginla and Cammalieri are likely to score more but guys like Hudler, Stempniak and Glencross are likely to score less.

And yeah, last night was pretty ridiculously awesome, if you ask me. Apparently if you ask just about anybody that actually watched that game from a fan perspective. Boo hoo, so the hawks took the coin flip in the end and their goalie played superhuman. It doesn't take away what the Flames did as a team. I saw a dominant, relentless team. They've been that way since playing the Oilers. Ffs, Bouwmeester is Actually playing up to his worth. And there's complaining?

Again ridiculously awesome is a little strong but they did play well last night. Overall this season they have played poorly though and that should have more weight than one game in which their opponents were at 40% at best.

Unless you're really taking the results/standings personally, when it's been repeatedly claimed on here that they're not a bonafide playoff team by the majority of people anyways, how can you complain about how they're playing right now?!..

I am commenting on how they are playing not complaining and I thought they would be an 8-12th place team not the worst team in the league that they look like now.

[Sakari]

Originally Posted by moon

It seems a little unfair to assume that Iginla and Cammalieri will return to their norms but the secondary guys won't return to theirs and keep scoring at the pace they are. Sure Iginla and Cammalieri are likely to score more but guys like Hudler, Stempniak and Glencross are likely to score less.

Hudler and Glencross will almost surely put up at least 40 points each, if not more. Stempniak.. you can't be sure. It's not like they're going to become completely invisible. And I wouldn't even be too sure about Hudler's play declining as he is definitely extremely skilled.

Again ridiculously awesome is a little strong but they did play well last night. Overall this season they have played poorly though and that should have more weight than one game in which their opponents were at 40% at best.

Not really. We played a pretty damn good period in every single game we've played. That shows that we are surely capable of being a playoff team. Consistency is key. I don't think the team is tired and that's why we can't play a full 60 minutes.. it's something else.

I am commenting on how they are playing not complaining and I thought they would be an 8-12th place team not the worst team in the league that they look like now.

If everything went our way.. we'd be in a playoff spot. We outplayed and out chanced the Nucks, the Avs, and the Hawks, we just failed to complete a full 60 minute game in one of those offerings, and failed to finish on excellent opportunities in the other two.. as well as failed in the shootout.

Figuring out our troubles in the extra frames and being able to finish plays we start are our only two worries right now. We aren't a bad team. We have plenty of skill, experience, and potential. We just need to finish.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by moon

It seems a little unfair to assume that Iginla and Cammalieri will return to their norms but the secondary guys won't return to theirs and keep scoring at the pace they are. Sure Iginla and Cammalieri are likely to score more but guys like Hudler, Stempniak and Glencross are likely to score less.



Again ridiculously awesome is a little strong but they did play well last night. Overall this season they have played poorly though and that should have more weight than one game in which their opponents were at 40% at best.



I am commenting on how they are playing not complaining and I thought they would be an 8-12th place team not the worst team in the league that they look like now.

That's fair, good points.

Secondary guys likely won't keep up the paces they're at now. However I would throw in Hudler as a possible exception, just based on his hockey sense, skill and ability to find players in open ice. He may not be as consistent in stretches, but those attributes remain with that type of player and make them dangerous at any time.

And well, by 'Flames standards' I would have described the game as such. And that's simply my opinion on it, was thoroughly entertained. You may call it an overstatement, but that's also your opinion.

I agree with you in that I'd have put them in the 8-12th range. And I believe they'll get there (well hope). That's where I think Iggy and Cammy will play a part.. and that is simply a prediction. So far they haven't. But whether it's catching a goalie on a bad night that gets them started, I think once they do, they will take off offensively.

[craig.caulks]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Dec 13 2010 I was at the Joe and saw LA beat Detroit 5-0. Quick stood on his head. LA got some lucky bounces. Detroit had something like 26 shots the second period.

I suppose consensus on CP would be that lack of skill lost the Wings that game too.

Sometimes goalies steal games.

I like the way this team has played more often than not. If they continue to play the right way, things will go their way more often

Anecdotes are anecdotes.

[AC]

Just because there's not a better place to put this:

Chris Butler ‏@TheButler44
The best part about the SuperBowl was Jiri Hudler knowing all the members of Destiny's Child! #superfan

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by craig.caulks

Anecdotes are anecdotes.

Relevant comments are relevant. It is a 2 piece puzzle

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by moon

I see a different team in terms of style but same overall effectiveness and ability.

Now instead of a team that plays steady in their own zone and have trouble creating chances they are a team that takes risks to try and create chances while ignoring the defensive side of the game...

I don't buy this for a second. From what I have seen, this year's Flames are not demonstrably worse on the defensive side of the puck than they were last year, or in any of the previous five or six. You have a very short memory if you do not recall the regular defensive breakdowns in recent memory.

Rather to the contrary, what is noticeably different this year is the team's ability and commitment to playing a puck possession game, which is something that they have not done since before B. Sutter's term as coach. The evidence for this is in their demonstrably improved face-off winning percentage (fourteenth in the NHL), and the difference between their average shots/game (second in the League) and shots against/game (second). This is a substantial improvement on where they have been ranked in each of the categories in past years. While these figures do not indicate anything about quality of chances or shots*, they do rather clearly demonstrate a definite improvement in possession time for the Flames, which has arguably been their biggest problem in the recent past.

* This in itself is rather subjective, and every person is likely to see much of what they want to or expect to see when viewing any game. It comes as NO surprise to hear you claim that the team has lapsed significantly defensively; your MO has pretty consistently been to exaggerate the Flames's problems at the expense of their strengths.

On the contrary, I think the team appears substantially better on the offensive side of the puck, and if they are any worse defensively (I don't think they are), then the difference is minimal or practically negligible.

[DeluxeMoustache]

^^^ Absolutely in agreement here.

Seems a lot of opinion is carried over from last year (plus) and people will evangelize their predetermined opinions. I prefer the open minded approach to temper and revise expectations based on past observations put in context then supplement assessment with changes and their impact.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Seems a lot of opinion is carried over from last year (plus) and people will evangelize their predetermined opinions. I prefer the open minded approach to temper and revise expectations based on past observations put in context then supplement assessment with changes and their impact.

It works in both directions, and I can happily admit that my natural tendency to view things optimistically indeed carries over into my interpretation of ALL events—including my perception of hockey games in which my favourite team is playing.

Are the Flames a better team this year than last year? Honestly, it is too early to tell. Are they a lottery team? Again, there is probably not nearly enough data from which to know for certain. With this in mind, I think that everyone really would be well served to reserve judgement, one way or the other.

I will say this much: Through six games lats season the Flames had compiled a 2-3-1 record. Through their first five home games they were 2-2-1. In their first six they were -3 in GF/GA (15-18), and were pretty regularly trounced on the shot-clock, having compiled an average of 25.5/31.1 SF/SA per game (153 for, 186 against). They finished last season dead last in faceoff winning percentage.

Their record is MARGINALLY worse than it was at this time last year, but their numbers on the powerplay, faceoffs, shots for and against are all significantly better. Again, I can't say for certain if the team is any (or much) better than last year's version—it is too early to tell. But by the same token it is too early to determine that this is indeed a bad hockey team. What I think is fairly abundantly clear is that the team is not worse than last year's—not in any meaningful way, and the places in which they do seem to have improved significantly compensate for any apparent setbacks.

[gargamel]

This is a little off topic, but does anyone know the reasoning behind the rule that you don't get the loser point if you lose in OT with your goalie pulled? I understood the reasoning when games could end in a tie, but it doesn't make sense to me now that all overtime games are worth 3 points anyway. I only ask because my friends and I were debating whether, if it weren't for that rule, it would have made sense to bring out an extra attacker to make the overtime 4-on-3 a 5-on-3 to try to settle it before the shootout.

[Erick Estrada]

Fan X and Fan Y can debate all they want if the team is better or worse but the truth is in the record. At the end of the day all teams are judged solely on wins and losses. If this team goes 1-2 on the road this week (highly probable) we are still likely looking at the basement of the standings close to middle of February.

All I know is that as the weeks go by any arguments of improvement are going to get substantially weaker as the losses and missed opportunities at points accumulate.

[nieuwy-89]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Fan X and Fan Y can debate all they want if the team is better or worse but the truth is in the record. At the end of the day all teams are judged solely on wins and losses. If this team goes 1-2 on the road this week (highly probable) we are still likely looking at the basement of the standings close to middle of February.

All I know is that as the weeks go by any arguments of improvement are going to get substantially weaker as the losses and missed opportunities at points accumulate.

I agree. How anyone can spin a 1-5 record is beyond me. In a 48-game season there is no time for moral victories. This team needs some W's, and soon.

The lack of toughness and inability to shut down other teams has been most dissapointing. This is not the Flames hockey that I know and love. Frankly with the exception of one fight, they have looked like a bunch of sissies so far this season.

[MissTeeks]

Roger Millions ‏@RogMillions
Glencross Hudler and Cervenka on a line...that is an interesting unit in practice for #Flames

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Roger Millions ‏@RogMillions
Glencross Hudler and Cervenka on a line...that is an interesting unit in practice for #Flames

Interesting. Any word on the other lines? Hopefully this means the Tanguay-as-a-center experiment is over. Both Backlund and Stajan have played well enough to deserve a shot centering Iginla and either Cammalleri or Tanguay.

[MissTeeks]

Weird, Steinberg said there was no changes:

Pat Steinberg ‏@Fan960Steinberg
No changes to lines and pairings this morning. #Flames

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by gargamel

This is a little off topic, but does anyone know the reasoning behind the rule that you don't get the loser point if you lose in OT with your goalie pulled? I understood the reasoning when games could end in a tie, but it doesn't make sense to me now that all overtime games are worth 3 points anyway. I only ask because my friends and I were debating whether, if it weren't for that rule, it would have made sense to bring out an extra attacker to make the overtime 4-on-3 a 5-on-3 to try to settle it before the shootout.

The League was worried about competitive balance, particularly in out of conference overtime games. They did not want to see a situation where the Flames were playing the Capitals and it did not really matter to the Flames if the Caps got the extra point, therefore the Flames pulled their goalie to get a better chance at two points. That is my understanding at least.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Weird, Steinberg said there was no changes:

Pat Steinberg ‏@Fan960Steinberg
No changes to lines and pairings this morning. #Flames

Also tweeted that the Glencross-Cervenka-Hudler line was for PP.