Friday, March 17, 2006
Red-coloured glasses
Yes, timing is everything, isn't it. I don't know how to start this post, so I guess we'll go point form, CinO-style:
It's fashionable to say that the Flames' forwards are a reflection of the way their coach played. I can't vouch for that, since Sutter retired before hockey on cable. But last night, I would certainly say that the Oilers' forwards were a reflection of the way their coach played. No, not their head coach...
A win is a win, and as is often the case, the Flames can look at their failure to convert puck pressure and scoring chances into goals as the reason they lost. And if the Flames play the Oilers in the playoffs, I might actually worry a bit about why Kipper seems to lose his mojo when he walks into SkyRex. But the lasting impression (uh, next-morning impression) of this game for me is that the Flames are getting it together for the playoffs, while the Oilers aren't yet out of the woods. If they don't play better next week, their dominance over the Canucks will quickly become but a fond memory. I await being proven wrong. (By events.)
- Calgary clearly carried the play for the most part. The Oil had a better PP, especially early, but the Flames' group of potzers on the forward lines way outplayed the Oilers at even strength. The failure to add to the 2-1 lead was frustrating for sure (btw, thanks for that quick whistle on Leclerc, ref), but all four lines just dominated down low. I'm very happy with the way the forwards are progressing as a group, heading to the playoffs.
- It's not just you, Chanandler. Huselius was a lot more dangerous than Samsonov yesterday. Sammy had one good shift, by my count, and it was made by Pronger's broken stick under Hammer's skate blade (though I concede that this kind of thing happens to scoring threats strangely often compared to, say, Stephane Yelle).
- As good as Calgary's forwards were, I thought the D had a pretty weak performance. They seemed awfully passive, especially with the puck. I thought that might have been Phaneuf's worst game of the year: save for drawing one penalty, he didn't make anything happen out there.
- Kipper cannot be the 3rd star in that game. Yeah, he made some nice saves, especially against the PP, but on the tying goal he was out of position (shades of December 19th), and the winner was just weak. I don't care how many great saves a goalie makes: two weak goals = a performance that's not good enough.
- Word of the night: square. I liked Ferraro earlier in the year - is he just talking a lot more now than he used to? If I were to give him one hint, it would be this: if you're tempted to start a sentence with, "Like I was saying before", just shut up. We heard you the first time.
- Peca & Laraque (together at last!): Edmonton's best forwards. I don't think the CPuck guy that Tyler quotes here was that far off: the Oil's forwards were remarkably (alarmingly?) passive. Most of them had only one or two shifts where they were competing like this was an important game. I say this seriously: where's the heart? As noted, Samsonov was near-invisible until the winning shift. Smyth seemed somewhat game, but took a couple of stupid/careless penalties. Stoll has just fallen off a cliff since the early season; I barely recognize him. He worked hard on his goal, but generally, he stunk. Hemsky was OK with the puck a couple of times, but didn't play like he was keen to gain possession of it. Torres had the nice hit on Iginla: otherwise, brutal. Dvorak was good on the PK only.
It's fashionable to say that the Flames' forwards are a reflection of the way their coach played. I can't vouch for that, since Sutter retired before hockey on cable. But last night, I would certainly say that the Oilers' forwards were a reflection of the way their coach played. No, not their head coach...A win is a win, and as is often the case, the Flames can look at their failure to convert puck pressure and scoring chances into goals as the reason they lost. And if the Flames play the Oilers in the playoffs, I might actually worry a bit about why Kipper seems to lose his mojo when he walks into SkyRex. But the lasting impression (uh, next-morning impression) of this game for me is that the Flames are getting it together for the playoffs, while the Oilers aren't yet out of the woods. If they don't play better next week, their dominance over the Canucks will quickly become but a fond memory. I await being proven wrong. (By events.)
# posted by Matt @ 10:59 am 
Comments:
Turnabout is fair play. I love mudcrutch79 using the reverse CP argument.
I don't know about the ES breakdown, but the overall Shots Directed at Net (shots + missed shots + opp. blocked shots) is very close: Flamers with 53 vs. the Oilers' 49.
Of course, the Flames bump up their number with an astonishing 20 missed shots.
I would just like it to be noted that my prediction that Calgary would a) blow a lead, and b) score no more than 2 goals came to fruition. I would take greater credit if it wasn't such an easy thing to predict. It's called science.
Fascinating strategy, when the Flames win they win. When the Flames lose they really won. Ah yes, the wonders of delusion.
Its pretty clear to me that the Flames are a couple of bad games by Kippersoff from being knocked out of the first round of the playoffs. The book on the Flames is you must score three goals, and if you do so there is no way the Flames can possibly hope to catch you. Its a team that has no secondary scoring, and this year its primary scoring hasn't even been terribly impressive.
Calgary is basically a lower scorer version of the Minnesota Wild with a better goalie.
And people can make what they want out of the playoff positions but when you come down to it, of the teams sitting 1-5, Calgary and Nashville are the two teams ripe to be sent off to the golf course early.
I thought it was called Statistical Analysis? :P And while some may consider it to be a science, I consider it a form of witchcraft, because I can understand science :P
Thanks Chris, for summarizing succinctly what seemingly everyone but green hard-hat wearing Flames fans who rediscovered they had an NHL team two years ago are all thinking.
Without Kipper, this team would be chasing a top five pick in the draft, not the Northwest division title.
Huselius actually did have a good game, and yes, Hemsky was irritatingly static away from the puck. The rest of Matt's entry is mostly just a cloud of ink shot from the hindquarters of a cornered invertebrate.
Let's just emphasize for the record that the slightly lazy Hemsky now has 51 assists on the year. No two Calgary Flames combined have this many.
A good player is a good player because he can have a quiet game and still make a difference in the outcome. It should be noted that while Huselius can be credited for a good game, what does it say when you have to credit a guy like that for playing a good game? It says that he doesn't always play a good game.
Part of me was hoping that this game would go to the shootout so we could watch Samsonov undress Kiprusoff, and then we could all laugh some more this morning.
I think the comment about the Flames basically being the Minnesota Wild, but with a better goalie is the smartest thing I have read yet today, and I'm reading alot.
Wow. Leopold is goalless in 206:56 of power play time this year.
Current league leaders in shots taken without a goal:
137 Jay Bouwmeester
73 Jordan Leopold
59 Cory Sarich
53 Hal Gill
47 Darius Kasparaitis
(Bouwmeester is on the #1 PP unit, isn't he? People were already talking about how snakebit he was when he made the Olympic team.)
Post a Comment
<< Home
Turnabout is fair play. I love mudcrutch79 using the reverse CP argument.
I don't know about the ES breakdown, but the overall Shots Directed at Net (shots + missed shots + opp. blocked shots) is very close: Flamers with 53 vs. the Oilers' 49.
Of course, the Flames bump up their number with an astonishing 20 missed shots.
I would just like it to be noted that my prediction that Calgary would a) blow a lead, and b) score no more than 2 goals came to fruition. I would take greater credit if it wasn't such an easy thing to predict. It's called science.
Fascinating strategy, when the Flames win they win. When the Flames lose they really won. Ah yes, the wonders of delusion.
Its pretty clear to me that the Flames are a couple of bad games by Kippersoff from being knocked out of the first round of the playoffs. The book on the Flames is you must score three goals, and if you do so there is no way the Flames can possibly hope to catch you. Its a team that has no secondary scoring, and this year its primary scoring hasn't even been terribly impressive.
Calgary is basically a lower scorer version of the Minnesota Wild with a better goalie.
And people can make what they want out of the playoff positions but when you come down to it, of the teams sitting 1-5, Calgary and Nashville are the two teams ripe to be sent off to the golf course early.
I thought it was called Statistical Analysis? :P And while some may consider it to be a science, I consider it a form of witchcraft, because I can understand science :P
# posted by 
: March 17, 2006 1:14 pm
: March 17, 2006 1:14 pm Thanks Chris, for summarizing succinctly what seemingly everyone but green hard-hat wearing Flames fans who rediscovered they had an NHL team two years ago are all thinking.
Without Kipper, this team would be chasing a top five pick in the draft, not the Northwest division title.
# posted by : March 17, 2006 1:32 pm
: March 17, 2006 1:32 pm Huselius actually did have a good game, and yes, Hemsky was irritatingly static away from the puck. The rest of Matt's entry is mostly just a cloud of ink shot from the hindquarters of a cornered invertebrate.
# posted by : March 17, 2006 1:53 pm
: March 17, 2006 1:53 pm Let's just emphasize for the record that the slightly lazy Hemsky now has 51 assists on the year. No two Calgary Flames combined have this many.
# posted by : March 17, 2006 1:58 pm
: March 17, 2006 1:58 pm A good player is a good player because he can have a quiet game and still make a difference in the outcome. It should be noted that while Huselius can be credited for a good game, what does it say when you have to credit a guy like that for playing a good game? It says that he doesn't always play a good game.
Part of me was hoping that this game would go to the shootout so we could watch Samsonov undress Kiprusoff, and then we could all laugh some more this morning.
I think the comment about the Flames basically being the Minnesota Wild, but with a better goalie is the smartest thing I have read yet today, and I'm reading alot.
Wow. Leopold is goalless in 206:56 of power play time this year.
Current league leaders in shots taken without a goal:
137 Jay Bouwmeester
73 Jordan Leopold
59 Cory Sarich
53 Hal Gill
47 Darius Kasparaitis
(Bouwmeester is on the #1 PP unit, isn't he? People were already talking about how snakebit he was when he made the Olympic team.)
# posted by : March 17, 2006 7:21 pm
: March 17, 2006 7:21 pm Post a Comment
<< Home
