[PGT] Nucks 4 Flames 3 SO LOSS - Page 11 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

dino7c · 02-10-2019, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

My goodness that's bad. Thankfully there are no shootouts in the playoffs but those points left on the table can add up.

Well its only cost them three points this season

dino7c · 02-10-2019, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Twice in a row? Jones, then Markstrom. Says more about the Flames than the goalies...

Top scoring team on home ice, one of the top scoring teams in the league...but whatever you want to think

dino7c · 02-10-2019, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chummer

I was wondering if the Flames would come home last night after the game and leave tomorrow for Tampa. But I see they're leaving YVR at 10 this morning and arrive in Tampa at 6 PM. local. Long day.

Is it really a big deal? I fly to Orlando on a packed flight with three kids

they should be fine by Tuesday night

activeStick · 02-10-2019, 11:16 AM

I agree with the sentiment that the Flames have looked like the much better team this season in head to heads against the Canucks but still... After the first loss, "play like that next time and you'll win". After the second loss, "just keep playing that way and the Flames will win 99% of the time". They lose the third time and its "in the playoffs, the Flames sweep the Canucks."

Just find it funny because if it were the playoffs, the good guys would be down 3 games to 1, facing elimination...

dino7c · 02-10-2019, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by activeStick

I agree with the sentiment that the Flames have looked like the much better team this season in head to heads against the Canucks but still... After the first loss, "play like that next time and you'll win". After the second loss, "just keep playing that way and the Flames will win 99% of the time". They lose the third time and its "in the playoffs, the Flames sweep the Canucks."

Just find it funny because if it were the playoffs, the good guys would be down 3 games to 1, facing elimination...

Vancouver has a SO and a 3 on 3 win...so you can't say that at all

also, Vancouver is not making the playoffs

heep223 · 02-10-2019, 11:33 AM

It’s laughable that some people think the Canucks would have a chance vs the Flames in a playoff series. They’d get crushed

Igottago · 02-10-2019, 11:40 AM

The Flames were not exposed by the Canucks in any way last night. They had complete control of the game and just ran into a good goaltending performance, and maybe were a little bit off with their shooting. Every Canucks fan in the building knew they got away with one.

Strange Brew · 02-10-2019, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Just extend three on three until you have a winner
More often than not it would still be less time than the shootout and the longer ones would just be that much more exciting

Yep. Maybe you have to go deeper into your bench if it prolongs.

You could introduce an over and back rule like basketball to eliminate teams playing exclusively possession hockey.

chummer · 02-10-2019, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Yep. Maybe you have to go deeper into your bench if it prolongs.

You could introduce an over and back rule like basketball to eliminate teams playing exclusively possession hockey.

NHL's big worry is time. What if you go a whole period without someone scoring? It would be rare but could happen.

But I'm with you guys, hate the shootout.

Barnet Flame · 02-10-2019, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heep223

It’s laughable that some people think the Canucks would have a chance vs the Flames in a playoff series. They’d get crushed

If that were the case in all previous cases where the Flames entered a playoff series as overwhelming favourites, I’d agree with you.

But it doesn’t work like that.

Strange Brew · 02-10-2019, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo

Someone put up his numbers in the last 11 and he's been somewhat pedestrian.

It's not an over reaction or a lack of perspective to suggest he needs to be better.

Seems like there are a couple of players that have Teflon around them and aren't allowed to be discusses when they have an off game.

Having said that I'm not that worried, every player goes through ups and downs, and right now Rittich is fighting it a bit.

I guess it's all perspective. Neal has been trending better over a similar number of games. Is Neal trending up and Rittich just going through a rough stretch. Is Neal going through a "hot streak" and Rittich trending down?

The thing with Rittich is that he is uncharted territory. No one can really sawy how he will handle #1 responsibility and a playoff run. The thing about a true #1 is that yo have to follow up a bad game with a better one. He has not had many opportunities to do that.

djsFlames · 02-10-2019, 11:50 AM

10 minutes of 3 on 3.

If no one scores, you flip a coin for the extra point. Still better than a shootout.

Robbob · 02-10-2019, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1_Flames_Fan

I like the Rittitch but really feel the Flames need a 1a,1b to do any real damage in the playoffs.

I think bringing in a goalie of higher calibre would not be a vote of confidence for Rittich. Flames are in a tricky situation with their goaltenders.

djsFlames · 02-10-2019, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SebC

47 shots and we lose? What are we, the Carolina Hurricanes?

Well we are 1/6th Hurricanes, yeah.

transplant99 · 02-10-2019, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chummer

NHL's big worry is time. What if you go a whole period without someone scoring? It would be rare but could happen.

But I'm with you guys, hate the shootout.

Go the 10 minutes and if all square still....just call it a tie and move on.

Erick Estrada · 02-10-2019, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dino7c

Well its only cost them three points this season

Well that's the difference from being up by 1 point over San Jose to 4 points ahead. At the end of the season will 3 points matter? Maybe.

Strange Brew · 02-10-2019, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chummer

NHL's big worry is time. What if you go a whole period without someone scoring? It would be rare but could happen.

But I'm with you guys, hate the shootout.

I get it. But baseball and basketball live with it.

You're right, some OT's would extend beyond 20 minutes. Each team would maybe have 1 game like that a year? And like I said, a subtle rule change like over and back might reduce the ragging of the puck we sometimes see.

Robbob · 02-10-2019, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djsFlames

10 minutes of 3 on 3.

If no one scores, you flip a coin for the extra point. Still better than a shootout.

Typically shoveling the ice and six shooters takes a little under 5 mins real time. So anytime a shootout goes beyond the initial 6 shooters you can easily get in 5 mins of more 3 on 3 since it is almost straight time.

I know in the AHL they previously had 7 min OT, but the first 4 mins were 4 on 4 until a whistle, then it went to 3 on 3. They should experiment again with 3 on 3 from the onset of OT for longer than 5 minutes. Get some metrics on how many OT games would go a full 10.

Beninho · 02-10-2019, 12:01 PM

Are some people trying to argue that a season series has any barring on a playoff matchup? I’d rather the flames outplay the Canucks in the regular season and lose to a hot goalie then get outplayed by the Canucks and squeak out wins. Markstrom is a hot and cold goalie, when he’s on he can be very hard to beat. He also has games where he’s completely off. There’s no way he could sustain a performance like the one last night through a 7 game series

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Igottago · 02-10-2019, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I guess it's all perspective. Neal has been trending better over a similar number of games. Is Neal trending up and Rittich just going through a rough stretch. Is Neal going through a "hot streak" and Rittich trending down?

The thing with Rittich is that he is uncharted territory. No one can really sawy how he will handle #1 responsibility and a playoff run. The thing about a true #1 is that yo have to follow up a bad game with a better one. He has not had many opportunities to do that.

I'm not prepared to say Neal is trending anywhere until his play produces the goals that the team needs from him for a solid stretch. Yes he has looked visually better. We all know how much that term means.
Did anyone think he was going to score in the shootout?