Now that the First Round is over will everyone step away from the ledge?

[brew]

I'm over it.. I just want my game worn jerseys now

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Beninho

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's an outstanding point, and it's an angle of this topic that I hadn't even considered until you mentioned it.

[DazzlinDino]

Some can make excuses, but the Flames didn't bring it. I know some applaud Smiths effort but the players didn't play well in front of him.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Actually, the first round results have made me even more disappointed the Flames had such a disastrous playoffs, because the path to the cup really opened up once Tampa was eliminated. Stacked against any other team, the Flames should have been the favourite throughout the rest of the playoffs. The fact that Sharks and the Golden Knights beat the crap out of each other would have set the Flames up really well to make conference finals.

Alas, it was not to be, and it feels like an even more wasted opportunity.

so much malarkey.

The Blue jackets had the biggest up set.

If this was a continuation of the regular season add their 8 pts to their regular season standings and they have 106 pts in the standings.

Flames would have gone from 107 pts to 109.

You think that San Jose or Vegas would not have beaten the snot out of the Flames is a ridiculous idea. The idea that the Flames won the 1st round by dazzling the Avs with their skating and skill is too abstract of a concept to get my head around.

Do you feel that the ream that dominated the Flames have a bye to the conference finals??

We have no idea how the Avs will react to playoff hockey where the other team tries to run them out of the building. Pretty sure that Mackinnon will not have as much space as he did against the Flames.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Flames won the first game pretty solidly, lost 2 of their 4 games in overtime, and yet were "dominated" by the opposition in 4 out of 5 games.

Ok then.

Were they disappointing compared to what we expect of them? Absolutely. In a way that could be conceivably be "getting embarrassed" if you choose to use that context. Was the series completely lopsided? Not really. Some key moments really swung momentum, and it was too late to swing it back by the end.

I'm already ready to move on from the post-mortem of these playoffs. It's all about getting hot and having momentum. Underdogs are winning more because there is less pressure or expectations on them, and with the current parity, the talent gap is pretty small in most series.

It's just a shame because with Smith playing well, the Flames should have finally had all the pieces they needed for a long playoff run. I think it's the sting of disappointment that's coloring discussions around here more than a level-headed assessment of the shortcomings of the team (of which there are some legitimate ones to review and work on).

[Salt Water Cowboy #10]

Disappointing playoffs, but seriously, the Avs were like the 04 Flames. Came in hot, nothing to lose, underdogs. We got caught flat footed. Much like Detroit and San Jose in 04. It was Iggy and Kipper, and the Avs were Mackinnon and Grubauer. We played soft and they played hungry

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

It was a shameful performance by the Flames.

They were flat out DOMINATED in 4/5 games, and relied on heroics from Smith to even win Game 1.

Outside of Tampa, the other teams experiencing disappointment at least put up a fight in their series.

You can easily make the case that the Flames were the WORST TEAM in the first round, even factoring in Tampa's sweep - Tampa was bad, but they weren't Flames bad.

EDIT: Want to add, it's getting tiring to hear this was a "learning experience" for the team... you mean to tell me that getting swept by the Ducks 2 years ago didn't help Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk, Gio, Brodie, Backlund learn at all?? How about the 5 game elimination by the Ducks 4 years ago (Gio excluded from that one of course)? Either this team is full of stupid players who take FOREVER to learn, or they are full of players who can't raise their game.

i don't really buy the whole experience thing either... does it help? Sure, but at the end of the day i think its more driven internally by your own motor.

Bennett was our best playoff performer in the only two series he has ever played in.

take the Canes and the Flames.... remove the two players from each team with the most experience, Neal and Smith and Williams and Staal, from the equation and the rest of the rosters have a fairly similar level of experience, Canes with 125 playoff games and the Flames with 112

I'd certainly be open to the argument that Williams is a great leader and helped Carolina more than the Flames veterans... but that's a different argument. Individual Canes players with little or no experience were able to raise their game while their counterparts on the Flames were not.

[Psytic]

What concerns me is that from what I seen we were the worst team of the 16 by a fair margin. I dont think we would have beat any other team in the west with how we played. it wasn't like it was close.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

Disappointing playoffs, but seriously, the Avs were like the 04 Flames. Came in hot, nothing to lose, underdogs. We got caught flat footed. Much like Detroit and San Jose in 04. It was Iggy and Kipper, and the Avs were Mackinnon and Grubauer. We played soft and they played hungry

Were they, or did they just come in playing playoff hockey?

There was nothing exceptional about the Avs play in this series. They were fast and high effort, because it's the playoffs. They simply played how a team has to and we didn't even approach that level, which is pretty consistent in our playoff appearances.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Psytic

What concerns me is that from what I seen we were the worst team of the 16 by a fair margin. I dont think we would have beat any other team in the west with how we played. it wasn't like it was close.

But it is still an incredibly small sample size. This playoff series will almost certainly not define the Flames nor the players involved. I have watched the NHL long enough to see how volatile results can be from one year to the next.

[Classic_Sniper]

All the divisional winners going down helps me understand why we lost, but It still doesn’t explain how we lost. The series was not close. Treliving had the same feeling that we could’ve easily lost in 4 if it was for Smith’s performance.

It will be up to him and his team to figure out how we lost so badly to an 8th seed. That’s the biggest question because the same core has had major issues with their last 3 playoff series. Personally I’m of the opinion that this team doesn’t have speed or the heaviness to beat the fastest teams in the playoffs or the heaviest. So I think Tree has a lot of work to do this summer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

so much malarkey.

The Blue jackets had the biggest up set.

If this was a continuation of the regular season add their 8 pts to their regular season standings and they have 106 pts in the standings.

Flames would have gone from 107 pts to 109.

You think that San Jose or Vegas would not have beaten the snot out of the Flames is a ridiculous idea. The idea that the Flames won the 1st round by dazzling the Avs with their skating and skill is too abstract of a concept to get my head around.

Do you feel that the ream that dominated the Flames have a bye to the conference finals??

We have no idea how the Avs will react to playoff hockey where the other team tries to run them out of the building. Pretty sure that Mackinnon will not have as much space as he did against the Flames.

Well duh. Who's arguing that the Flames didn't crap the bed? My point was, before the playoff started, it was already a foregone conclusion to many that Tampa was winning the cup. Them being out meant the cup was up for grabs to the rest of the teams. I didn't say it was easy, but it was made a lot more winnable after Tampa was ousted.

Had the Flames performed well, they would have had just a good a shot as any of the rest remaining for the cup. And Sharks and Knights beating each other up would have been seen as an advantage had the Flames taken care of their end.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I think part of the concerns that some have is that the playoff series was a continuation of the main second half concern - the play of the top forwards.
The team was carried in the second half, by everyone else. The top line stopped producing.
So some of the theories are valid to propose
- There is a fitness issue with some of those players such that they trail off as the season goes on
- Teams adjusted to their play and they were unable to readjust
- Teams realized they can easily take those players off their game by frustrating them by being more physical

Either way, what happened in the playoffs was in some ways a continuation of things that were happening for the balance of the second half. So I don't fully buy that it was a small sample size.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

Disappointing playoffs, but seriously, the Avs were like the 04 Flames. Came in hot, nothing to lose, underdogs. We got caught flat footed. Much like Detroit and San Jose in 04. It was Iggy and Kipper, and the Avs were Mackinnon and Grubauer. We played soft and they played hungry

How funny will it be if Colorado and Columbus carried on that legacy?

The refs seem more than ready to play their part!

[Geeoff]

The Flames got dominated and it sucks.

Now we need to try and evaluate the team logically without the "it sucks" part.

Although, there are already people paid to do that, so the rage and sadness are entirely understandable.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Psytic

What concerns me is that from what I seen we were the worst team of the 16 by a fair margin. I dont think we would have beat any other team in the west with how we played. it wasn't like it was close.

Lets see how the Avs do before making this kinda statements...Avs were as good as anyone down the stretch.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

i don't really buy the whole experience thing either... does it help? Sure, but at the end of the day i think its more driven internally by your own motor.

Bennett was our best playoff performer in the only two series he has ever played in.

take the Canes and the Flames.... remove the two players from each team with the most experience, Neal and Smith and Williams and Staal, from the equation and the rest of the rosters have a fairly similar level of experience, Canes with 125 playoff games and the Flames with 112

I'd certainly be open to the argument that Williams is a great leader and helped Carolina more than the Flames veterans... but that's a different argument. Individual Canes players with little or no experience were able to raise their game while their counterparts on the Flames were not.

Canes played decent but they should have lost last night really...Holtby allowed two terrible goals in regulation when the Caps were in complete control. There is some luck involved.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think part of the concerns that some have is that the playoff series was a continuation of the main second half concern - the play of the top forwards.
The team was carried in the second half, by everyone else. The top line stopped producing.
So some of the theories are valid to propose
- There is a fitness issue with some of those players such that they trail off as the season goes on
- Teams adjusted to their play and they were unable to readjust
- Teams realized they can easily take those players off their game by frustrating them by being more physical

Either way, what happened in the playoffs was in some ways a continuation of things that were happening for the balance of the second half. So I don't fully buy that it was a small sample size.

I agree with your concern about the top line, but I disagree that the playoffs were a simple continuation of what happened in the end of the regular season, and this is primarily what I am getting at by suggesting that it is an incredibly small sample size. What I mean is that the magnitude by which the Flames were outplayed in Round One was anomalous. It was a dramatically different performance from ANYTHING we saw over the course of the season, and this leads me to think that a huge part of it for the players was psychological. In other words, the gap between the Flames and the Avalanche—and by extension the Flames and the rest of the teams still in the playoffs—is not nearly as vast as it appeared in that series. It looks that way because it was only five games.

[TheIronMaiden]

The first round really confirmed to me why I love the NHL. The parity between teams makes every game exciting. The margin of skill between the 1st seed and 16th seed is so slim.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Actually, the first round results have made me even more disappointed the Flames had such a disastrous playoffs, because the path to the cup really opened up once Tampa was eliminated. Stacked against any other team, the Flames should have been the favourite throughout the rest of the playoffs. The fact that Sharks and the Golden Knights beat the crap out of each other would have set the Flames up really well to make conference finals.

Alas, it was not to be, and it feels like an even more wasted opportunity.

Pretty much this.


And the Flames were beaten by essentially only one line of the Avs. That's what stings the most.