[PGT] Flames lose 5-2 to the Sharks due to a terrible 90 second span and snakebit offense

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The Flames don't have a goaltending issue. They have one of the best starters, and one of the worst backups which gives them middling team save percentage.

Unlike having two average goaltenders, this gives you an obvious path to improve the team.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by SebC

Unlike having two average goaltenders, this gives you an obvious path to improve the team.

I just wouldn't expend the assets to upgrade the position. The only way you do it is if its cheap, but if that's the case I don't think you honestly know if you're actually upgrading the position.

Most teams head into the playoffs knowing an injury to their best forward, goaltender or defenseman will sink their chances.

I'm good with that.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I just wouldn't expend the assets to upgrade the position. The only way you do it is if its cheap, but if that's the case I don't think you honestly know if you're actually upgrading the position.

Most teams head into the playoffs knowing an injury to their best forward, goaltender or defenseman will sink their chances.

I'm good with that.

Here is the way I look at it ...

Mike Smith will likely play another ten games down the stretch:

· one of each of the three remaining back-to-backs — (@NYI+@NJD; @VGK+@Arz; v.NYR+@Wpg)
· a selection from seven more games v. sub-.500 teams (@Fla, v.Arz, v.Anh, @Ott, v.Ott, v.LAK, v.Anh)
· one or two of three more games in April when the team is likely icing a non-playoff roster (@LAK, @Anh, v.Edm)

My choices are in bold. Among this group of games I think it is likely that Smith will win at least six, and probably seven. The question then is how many more will another, different back-up goaltender win? And more to the point, how much is the team willing to spend in acquiring him?

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I can't believe some of the Smith comments, but then I also see they are balanced out with some reasonable comments in his defense.

There are plenty of reasonable comments that Flames have a major risk in net. There is reasonable comments to be made that the Flames should look to improve the position. I am not suggesting at any cost, but they should absolutely try.

I don't think many reasonable people thought Smith lost us the game. Many of us do look at his larger body of work and see a guy cartwheeling around taking bullets in front of the net. That play on his penalty was atrocious, the final goal all over the place was bad too.

Flames went all the way to the end with Kipper and Turek. Fair enough, except Turek I feel could be trusted not to have Yakety Sax as his theme music. If we do the same we'll see Smith at some point. I'd like us to have a chance at least to clutch one out of the jaws, instead of thinking "oh great here we go..."

[icecube]

Mike Smith makes everyone else's job harder. They have to expend more energy trying to keep a narrower lead or have to claw their way back from a deficit. Precious beautiful energy that could be saved for the playoffs when it matters most.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by icecube

Mike Smith makes everyone else's job harder. They have to expend more energy trying to keep a narrower lead or have to claw their way back from a deficit. Precious beautiful energy that could be saved for the playoffs when it matters most.

Last night it would have been nice if the team made Smith's job easier by not making his first shot be a grade A chance.

Maybe the team should just play really well no matter who is in net.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, the brutal turnover on the second goal was Rittich's own. On the first, turnover or not, that was a pee wee shot. Even I would have stopped it.

That said, I agree with the rest. Rittich was god awful last night, but there is no reason not to expect him to bounce back tomorrow.

It was Bennett's turnover

[LWcrowfoot]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

It was Bennett's turnover

Then Rittich did.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

It was Bennett's turnover

Bennett turned the puck over at the offensive blue-line. Rittich gave the puck to Burns who then had an empty net. Both were very bad, to blame Bennett alone is...odd.

Reducing a goal against to one play, especially this goal, is ridiculous. Usually a goal against is a combination of multiple players making mistakes. In this case, Bennett and Rittich both screwed up. You could also argue that the entire PP2 unit was caught flat footed. Ryan over-committed on it as well.

[gamesaver]

Just a thought. Would you prefer Rittich staying in the net and allow Burns breakaway? Knowing Rittich is not as good as Smith playing the puck but is much better at making saves, maybe it would have been a better choice? But most importantly, do you think he would have been pulled had he stayed in and Burns picked a corner? I got to think that would not have been considered a weak goal.

[transplant99]

Rittich coming out was the right play...its what he did once he got the puck, that was as wrong as it gets...but none of it happens without the blueline turnover.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by gamesaver

Just a thought. Would you prefer Rittich staying in the net and allow Burns breakaway? Knowing Rittich is not as good as Smith playing the puck but is much better at making saves, maybe it would have been a better choice? But most importantly, do you think he would have been pulled had he stayed in and Burns picked a corner? I got to think that would not have been considered a weak goal.

Best play may have been to cover the puck and take the minor penalty.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Rittich coming out was the right play...its what he did once he got the puck, that was as wrong as it gets...but none of it happens without the blueline turnover.

It was also a good read by Burns. As a goalie handling the puck, his options are very limited, he really could only go one way with that puck without make an adjustment while handling it, which could end up being just as egregious.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Best play may have been to cover the puck and take the minor penalty.

Immediately hard off the boards.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Immediately hard off the boards.

I thought that too at first, but there was another Sharks player right behind Burns following up the play. It was difficult to know what to do.

[jlh2640]

That game was frustrating to watch in so many ways

[gamesaver]

Solved it. This was the right play:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBU0h-7wVD8

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by gamesaver

Solved it. This was the right play:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBU0h-7wVD8

Clicked the link expecting it to be exactly what it was.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Bennett turned the puck over at the offensive blue-line. Rittich gave the puck to Burns who then had an empty net. Both were very bad, to blame Bennett alone is...odd.

Reducing a goal against to one play, especially this goal, is ridiculous. Usually a goal against is a combination of multiple players making mistakes. In this case, Bennett and Rittich both screwed up. You could also argue that the entire PP2 unit was caught flat footed. Ryan over-committed on it as well.

Not Blaming Bennett, just stating it's what caused the basically breakaway if Rittich doesn't go after the puck. Rittich clearly didn't have his best game which i made clear earlier.