Mike Smith Watch

[Robbob]

So not serious enough to not think he might be available on Friday.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I fully expect that some are eager to see Lack fail for precisely this reason. I don’t believe that the coaches are so shortsighted and reactionary that they will only give him a game or two. My prediction is that Lack will be fine.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not hoping Lack fails.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Don't get me wrong, I'm not hoping Lack fails.

No, I believe you. But you can bet there are posters here who are desperate to see him fail. After his first mis-step, they will be out in force.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No, I believe you. But you can bet there are posters here who are desperate to see him fail. After his first mis-step, they will be out in force.

Well, with Bennett scoring, Brouwer making some decent contributions, Stajan and Bart sitting, the whipping boy position needs filling.

[SDV325]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, with Bennett scoring, Brouwer making some decent contributions, Stajan and Bart sitting, the whipping boy position needs filling.

[Calgary4LIfe]

This is what a backup is for - to step in to give the starter some rest, and to fill-in during injury.

I didn't like the Lack trade much because I didn't think all that much of him. However, if Gulutzan is saying he is looking like his old self in practice - and keeping in mind what we saw from him in his limited time thus far - I am not worried. The Flames are playing well, and Smith has been 'good' but not 'great' for this last little stretch. Lack just needs to come in and not allow any bad goals. He doesn't have to play at such a high level. Just be consistent and dependable. History has shown that he can indeed be that (and possibly more) as long as he has his game back.

I am actually interested in seeing how he does with responsibility. If he fails, well, I would expect Gillies to take over, and that's a great opportunity for him. Smith won't be out for too long if he is traveling with the team anyways.

[CroFlames]

I didn't love the Lack trade either. But Lack was not the reason the Flames got lit up by Detroit. He played good enough. And the previous game, he had some pretty big saves that people say you need to win.

Flames came out flat, and remained flat. Credit to the Wings though, who came out flying and damn near played a perfect game. We move on, and I don't think confidence in Lack has been shaken because of that game.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bawbag

How about giving the guy a chance.

Came in and done his job against St Louis on Monday

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Lack saved us the game, say thanks to Ferland and Hamilton for there boneheaded plays. Are you telling me that you would have been able to see a fluky-tipped shot and then save a 2 on 1 from a top 3 sniper in the league?

And how did that work out last night boys? Bad goalie is bad goalie. Last night's loss was a team effort but Lack didn't make a single big save. Anytime the Wings got a decent scoring chance it ended up in the net not unlike a few seasons ago when Hiller and Ramo were putting up feeble numbers that hadn't been seen in the NHL for well over a decade. I have nothing against Lack other than he hasn't been a decent goaltender since he was in a Canucks uniform.

[gunnner]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No, I believe you. But you can bet there are posters here who are desperate to see him fail. After his first mis-step, they will be out in force.

maybe some just see a goalie who hasnt played well for 30+ calendar months. Nobody wanted to see Setoguchi fail when he arrived, but it was also clear by November his career arc was continuing in the wrong direction. Eddie Lack last played well consistently in 2015, what evidence is there that this will change. it doesnt work like that. i saw nothing but net everytime detroit shot the puck. the numbers back it up.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by gunnner

maybe some just see a goalie who hasnt played well for 30+ calendar months. Nobody wanted to see Setoguchi fail when he arrived, but it was also clear by November his career arc was continuing in the wrong direction. Eddie Lack last played well consistently in 2015, what evidence is there that this will change. it doesnt work like that. i saw nothing but net everytime detroit shot the puck. the numbers back it up.

Well, I think more than 120 mins of work is not an excessive expectation from which to draw conclusions about his capacity in the long run. And I would disagree that Lack "hasn't played well for 30+ calendar months." In the last two months of the season last year he registered a 0.919 SP through his final 14 games, and won seven of them. Why should this much more substantial sample size be dismissed in favour of the results from just his first three games with the Flames?

He may prove to be inadequate, but I don't believe there is enough available data from which to draw this conclusion.

[gunnner]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Well, I think more than 120 mins of work is not an excessive expectation from which to draw conclusions about his capacity in the long run. And I would disagree that Lack "hasn't played well for 30+ calendar months." In the last two months of the season last year he registered a 0.919 SP through his final 14 games, and won seven of them. Why should this much more substantial sample size be dismissed in favour of the results from just his first three games with the Flames?

He may prove to be inadequate, but I don't believe there is enough available data from which to draw this conclusion.

Because he fails the numbers and the eye test. From another thread
"Lack based on last 50 games actually ranks 51st in the NHL for WORST .898 save % and 47th goal against % 2.86 both stats out of 52 goalies. "
If the eyes told you something different, then ok. let him play out of it.

Ill put this another way, if you Textcritic were GM based on all the information you have, would you carry on with Lack for another 5-10 starts or give him one more game and move on if he doesnt play well.
For me all the evidence points to the second one as the right choice. Lets see what the flames do.

[Jay Random]

Lack's last 50 games include a long stretch when the Hurricanes were trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. The 14-game stretch Textcritic referred to came after he was allowed to go back to playing goal the way that's most effective for him.

Context matters.

[gunnner]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Well, I think more than 120 mins of work is not an excessive expectation from which to draw conclusions about his capacity in the long run. And I would disagree that Lack "hasn't played well for 30+ calendar months." In the last two months of the season last year he registered a 0.919 SP through his final 14 games, and won seven of them. Why should this much more substantial sample size be dismissed in favour of the results from just his first three games with the Flames?

He may prove to be inadequate, but I don't believe there is enough available data from which to draw this conclusion.

Eyetest wins out this time.