Flames Are A Bottom Feeder Without Kipper? - Page 3 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Psytic · 02-17-2013, 12:36 AM

I think they are better than last year as well. At least when they lose its still an entertaining game and you can see signs of life on offense this year. If I still lived in Calgary I don't think I would feel bad going to some of the games that they have lost.

I really do think ####ty goal-tending and injuries has been the difference in a couple of the games. I think Hiller lvl goal-tending, Bart, Backlund and a blue chip prospect from this yrs draft and they could actually be a 6-8th seed team. I don't think from what I have seen that they need to blow it up. I legitimately think they could have an off season with Fa signings like this last one and be competitive next year if they get average goal tending. I think they are better than Nash, Detroit, Phx, Colu, Min, Col, Edm with decent goal-tending. I think the bottom of our conference is actually pretty weak and there is no reason the Flames can't be a playoff team.

I know everyone thinks its crazy but if this team had Lou (crazy I know) in net and would of signed Hannan ( looks good in Nash) for 1 mill they are sitting comfortably in 7 or 8th place easy.

Psytic · 02-17-2013, 01:56 AM

Actually now that I think about it if Kipper is legit retiring next year maybe they could go with a Hiller/ Ramo tandem for insurance. If Fasth keeps up with how he is playing then they are setup to segway into Gibson and don't need him and he could be had for way less than Lou since hes just an average starter. Probably a little safer than completely relying on Ramo an unknown quantity.

BloodFetish · 02-17-2013, 05:42 AM

Good thread, RD. I don't think there's much question the goalies have let this team down so far this year.

As well as the stats you've collected I'm also curious about how much time the Flames spend in the offensive zone or defensive zone as well as chances for/against (which has been discussed already). I don't know if those stats are tracked.

Really, Hartley's approach with this team is night and day from Sutter's. I also credit the D with being able to advance the play to the forwards much more than we saw last year - much of that is from the Wideman-Brodie pairing. Having said that, for what I was able to stomach watching of the St. Louis game their transition game was pitiful.

Going off topic, but does anyone else notice how easily the D-corps give up the blue line when the other team is on the rush? They skate backwards to the circles and seem to wait for the forwards to backcheck. Is this a strategy or just poor execution? Conversely it seems the opposing D tries to stand up the Flames forwards at their blue line.

OzSome · 02-17-2013, 10:23 AM

I think the Flames can be a good team but they rely too much on Kipper bailing them out most the game. When Kipper is off so goes the team. We dont a have a centre who can play against top line centre like Toews, Thornton, Getzlaf and others. Our defense with the exception Cory Sarich are soft and would rather run around and chase instead of being physical in front of the net. Look at the results, Kipper had been bumped way too many times and the referees are ignoring it. I don't care how calm and collected Kipper is if the opposing forwards are just right in his face at least 90% of the shots. The guy will get mad and start losing his concentration.
Our defensemen offensively are much better this season joining the rush. Defensively i think they are better except the physicality. I hate to say this but Butler is not as bad as others thought. He just fits in as the #5 or 6 D. We have the talents in our forward position. We've seen what they can do vs Dallas when they get the chance. We are just missing that 1st line C. I think our wingers Iggy, Cammalleri, Hudler, Tanguay, Glencross and Stempniak are decent wingers. Add Baertschi and Cervenka on that list. Our centre position not so good. We have to use a winger Tangs on the 1st or 2nd line. Stajan is definitely not 1st or 2nd line C. He should be good on the 3rd with Glencross & Stempniak.

ComixZone · 02-17-2013, 10:39 AM

Doesn't matter who is in net. You can't win anything meaningful in the NHL without top end center depth. Arguing everything is an exercise in futility. You can't win without top end center depth.

Having elite goaltending and terrible center depth is where the Flames were last year. Getting bad/average goaltending and having terrible depth at center is where we are this year.

The difference in results? Negligible. There is absolutely no point to anything this team does outside of getting a solid foundation of very good centers. Everything else is obtainable after the fact. Get high end center depth, or continue to be absolutely irrelevant in the NHL standings.

Flash Walken · 02-17-2013, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

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.

Having watched a lot of hockey so far this year, I would say that yes, The Calgary Flames give up an inordinate amount of high quality scoring chances, usually after being hemmed in their own zone for the majority of a shift or off an offensive zone draw.

The quality of turnovers has been egregious up to this point.

This is, but a sprinkling:
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...ed-share-video
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...52&cmpid=embed
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...ed-share-video
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...ed-share-video
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...ed-share-video
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...ed-share-video
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...ed-share-video

Those are juicy.

Sylvanfan · 02-17-2013, 11:11 AM

I still think they're too easy to play against. Not very big or strong, and the defensive coverage is not very good. The goal tending has been bad this year no doubt. But the team also lacks the finishers to take advantage of their scoring chances they do get. The fact that 12 games in there are 4 spots up front that have not scored a single goal. The 4 th line has zero goals so far, even with a lack of ice time, that's still unacceptable. The team is a mess, they can move the puck at times and make some really nice plays. But ultimately this is a team that will yo-yo between having their point total match their games played, and just below that. Thus far better goaltending maybe gets them two more points thus far.

Henry Fool · 02-17-2013, 11:16 AM

If they could get Hasek in his prime, they might challenge for a playoff spot. Maybe.

Since that's not possible, all I can see them doing is falling slowly towards the bottom.

Roof-Daddy · 02-17-2013, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I still think they're too easy to play against. Not very big or strong, and the defensive coverage is not very good. The goal tending has been bad this year no doubt. But the team also lacks the finishers to take advantage of their scoring chances they do get. The fact that 12 games in there are 4 spots up front that have not scored a single goal. The 4 th line has zero goals so far, even with a lack of ice time, that's still unacceptable. The team is a mess, they can move the puck at times and make some really nice plays. But ultimately this is a team that will yo-yo between having their point total match their games played, and just below that. Thus far better goaltending maybe gets them two more points thus far.

Well, as posted in OP the Flames are 4th in the West for goals scored, and 8th in the league.

I would love it if they scored more and had the #1 offense in hockey, but goal scoring (or capatalizing on our chances) is not the primary problem. Weak goaltending is.

Roof-Daddy · 02-17-2013, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Having watched a lot of hockey so far this year, I would say that yes, The Calgary Flames give up an inordinate amount of high quality scoring chances, usually after being hemmed in their own zone for the majority of a shift or off an offensive zone draw.

The quality of turnovers has been egregious up to this point.

This is, but a sprinkling:
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...ed-share-video
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...52&cmpid=embed
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...ed-share-video
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...ed-share-video
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...ed-share-video
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...ed-share-video
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/con...ed-share-video

Those are juicy.

I agree, those are juicy and I have already admitted that I think the Flames are giving up some quality scoring chances....I still see no proof that they are giving up anything more than any other team in the West, or at least not enough to justify being dead last in goals against while giving up the second fewest shots.

Also, for everyone of the goals against that you highlighted above (due to the Flames giving up a juicy scoring chance against), I could probably find one weak goal given up by our goaltenders as well.

There were three weak ones given up in the Colorado game alone.

Flash Walken · 02-17-2013, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I agree, those are juicy and I have already admitted that I think the Flames are giving up some quality scoring chances....I still see no proof that they are giving up anything more than any other team in the West, or at least not enough to justify being dead last in goals against while giving up the second fewest shots.

Also, for everyone of the goals against that you highlighted above (due to the Flames giving up a juicy scoring chance against), I could probably find one weak goal given up by our goaltenders as well.

There were three weak ones given up in the Colorado game alone.

Even if you think the differential in goals would've been even without the softies, Calgary is still competing for a tie with one of the worse teams in the league.

The point I'm making is you'd have to have to some Dominik Hasek level goaltending to turn a 14th place team into a respectable one.

All three Flames Starters from this year have nearly identical goals against averages. How is that possible? All three goalies are almost precisely the same level of bad?

Aside from Buffalo, I don't think I've seen a team give up more quality chances off of turnovers and weak zone play than the Flames this year. I wouldn't even put the Oilers up there and their defensive zone coverage is still on backorder.

vektor · 02-17-2013, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

All three Flames Starters from this year have nearly identical goals against averages. How is that possible?

They aren't very good

djsFlames · 02-17-2013, 11:47 AM

I took a day and a half break from CP cause it was getting far too negative and doom and gloom for my taste. It was impossible to even come in and make discussion that was remotely enjoyable.

Upon my return, looks to be no different.

Bunch a' whiners.

And if they win big tonight, the scale will tip all the way to the other end. It'll suddenly turn from these sorts of speculations into "Maybe it was all just goaltending against the Blues!" "Maybe the captain is actually back now!" "Maybe these Czech guys can really be the difference!" "If they win tomorrow I'll really start to think we have something going here!"

We really need to stop getting too high and too low.
The one piece of Brent Sutter advice that I wish everyone would take a dose of.

Ark2 · 02-17-2013, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I took a day and a half break from CP cause it was getting far too negative and doom and gloom for my taste. It was impossible to even come in and make discussion that was remotely enjoyable.

I tend to disagree with this. Sure, there are people that are negative, but there are also threads that are popping up praising the coach, praising the GM, along with many posters proclaiming that the team is better than last year. When you consider the fact that we are currently in 14th place in the west and dead last in terms on number of wins in the league, I think that speaks pretty well towards the level of positivity on this forum. I guess if you are one of those guys that doesn't like to hear anything negative about his or her favourite team, this place could be a bit much, but otherwise, I think you are being overly negative about CP.

$ven27 · 02-17-2013, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I took a day and a half break from CP cause it was getting far too negative and doom and gloom for my taste. It was impossible to even come in and make discussion that was remotely enjoyable.

Upon my return, looks to be no different.

Bunch a' whiners.

And if they win big tonight, the scale will tip all the way to the other end. It'll suddenly turn from these sorts of speculations into "Maybe it was all just goaltending against the Blues!" "Maybe the captain is actually back now!" "Maybe these Czech guys can really be the difference!" "If they win tomorrow I'll really start to think we have something going here!"

We really need to stop getting too high and too low.
The one piece of Brent Sutter advice that I wish everyone would take a dose of.

People are upset for bigger reasons then just where they are in the standings. There are more negatives then positives with this team so it shouldn't be surprising that for every positive post there's 3 negative posts.

Roof-Daddy · 02-17-2013, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I took a day and a half break from CP cause it was getting far too negative and doom and gloom for my taste. It was impossible to even come in and make discussion that was remotely enjoyable.

Upon my return, looks to be no different.

Bunch a' whiners.

And if they win big tonight, the scale will tip all the way to the other end. It'll suddenly turn from these sorts of speculations into "Maybe it was all just goaltending against the Blues!" "Maybe the captain is actually back now!" "Maybe these Czech guys can really be the difference!" "If they win tomorrow I'll really start to think we have something going here!"

We really need to stop getting too high and too low.
The one piece of Brent Sutter advice that I wish everyone would take a dose of.

What in the heck does this have to with my original post?

Seriously?

My original thought is neither too high or too low, overly negative or overly positive.

It was just an observation based on statistical analisys, and an invitation to discuss what I thought.

Then you come flying in here with a half cocked rant?

Maybe you didn't take a long enough break.

djsFlames · 02-17-2013, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

What in the heck does this have to with my original post?

Seriously?

My original thought is neither too high or too low, overly negative or overly positive.

It was just an observation based on statistical analisys, and an invitation to discuss what I thought.

Then you come flying in here with a half cocked rant?

Maybe you didn't take a long enough break.

Lol, *throws a slab of meat*

Annnd.... Go!

Sylvanfan · 02-17-2013, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Well, as posted in OP the Flames are 4th in the West for goals scored, and 8th in the league.

I would love it if they scored more and had the #1 offense in hockey, but goal scoring (or capatalizing on our chances) is not the primary problem. Weak goaltending is.

Take away the Dallas game and it's 28 goals in 11 games which is 2.55 goals per game. In the 8 losses the team has 16 goals scored, and 12 in 7 of those. So really it's a team who whave been held to two or fewer goals in 50% of their games. The inconsistency in their scoring is part of the problem in my view.

Roof-Daddy · 02-17-2013, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Take away the Dallas game and it's 28 goals in 11 games which is 2.55 goals per game. In the 8 losses the team has 16 goals scored, and 12 in 7 of those. So really it's a team who whave been held to two or fewer goals in 50% of their games. The inconsistency in their scoring is part of the problem in my view.

Fair enough, this team has more wart than one which is why I stipulated right off the top that my argument wasn't being made to spin the Flames into any sort of Cup contender.

My original point still stands though IMO, our goaltending this season is a glaring weakness, and not the biggest strength that keeps us from last place.

Flash Walken · 02-17-2013, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Take away the Dallas game and it's 28 goals in 11 games which is 2.55 goals per game. In the 8 losses the team has 16 goals scored, and 12 in 7 of those. So really it's a team who whave been held to two or fewer goals in 50% of their games. The inconsistency in their scoring is part of the problem in my view.

And in order to get the goals for, the forwards have to open things up in the defensive end which lead to goals against.

You can't score your way out of these things. Not even Philly can outscore their way to the promised land.