Sunday, December 09, 2007

 

Flames Game Day: I'm hoping for a late surge, and if I reach number 1, I promise to sing stark naked on TV on Christmas Eve

Boy, it might be tough to keep coming up with these Christmas movie post headers until the 25th. But at any rate...

Headline of the Day: Regehr good to go. Despite the fact that I try to look at hockey things pretty bloodlessly, in terms of data and underlying fundamentals, I do retain a degree of superstition. In Thursday's Penguins game, Daymond Langkow crashed hard into the boards and appeared to have suffered a serious leg injury... then was back in the game after missing only a handful of shifts. Regehr took a puck off the foot, and was believed to have broken it, meaning out for a month... but it turns out it was just a bruise.

I believe this is the hockey gods telling the Flames, "We are giving you one last chance to get back into the mix. If you squander it, well, be assured that your upcoming luck with injuries won't be the good kind."

What to expect today in Chicago (5PM MT, RSN West)? I'm not sure. I'm not terribly frightened of the new Havlat-Kane-Toews line, or at least, no more than I am of Havlat with anyone. Whoever Denis Savard targets with that line should be able to hold their own 5v5; it's the PK where that could get ugly. The Flames would be well-advised to avoid needless penalties, and yes Owen Nolan, stop staring at your laces, I'm talking to you.

Calgary 4 (Lombardi x2, Langkow, Aucoin)
Hog Butcher for the World 2 (Havlat, Buff-Lynn)

Go Flames.

Comments:

I was worried about Havlat at ES when I thought Regehr would be out. Depending on Reggie's effectiveness, that's not as big a problem anymore. Just have to try to score on the PP rather than get scored on I guess.
 


Phaneuf looks terrible - again.
 


Tanguay-Conroy-Nolan? I realize they scored, but where did that line come from? Tanguay has played well recently, so why is he getting stuck with the two players most likely to choke on a pass?

Kipprusoff is playing well, but we've lost our lead in shots, and we're down 40-60 in faceoffs. Those things don't bode well.
 


This has nothing to do with the game, but I thought it was both funny and a little disturbing.

If an Edmonton Oiler mated with a Calgary Flame, this is the jersey the offspring would wear...

http://nhllogos.blogspot.com/2007/12/just-to-freak-you-out-xviii.html
 


Go Flames! 3-1

Damn it! 3-2

Still, Kipper sounds outstanding tonight. And the rink announcer sounded like he was about to start crying after our third goal. I was going to gloat about that, but after the Chicago goals it lost some weight.

We need to keep the puck in the Chicago zone. We can't try to play a shut down game. We just aren't good enough.
 


Remember this day Flames fans: Kipprusoff just stole his first game.

Here's to many more!
 


Boy, it might be tough to keep coming up with these Christmas movie post headers until the 25th

Nice "Love Actually" reference. I don't know what is worse, the fact that you quoted "Love Actually," or that I knew what movie it was from without having to look it up. How can you tell that Matt and Andy are in long-term relationships? See the above.
 


Tanguay-Conroy-Nolan? I realize they scored, but where did that line come from?

I ahve no idea. And that's the line Keenan threw against Crosby at the dome as well.

They were somehow on the ice for 2 goals for, so most people probably won't notice how gawd awful that unit was all night - especially in the 3rd period when the Flames had the lead. It was total cluster - F whenever Nolan climbed over the boards.

Kipper won this game. That's the first one by my count and that's the only positive I saw tonight.
 


That was from Love, Actually? I assumed it was a combination reference to recent events in Iraq and Brett Butt's vow in October if the Roughriders won the Grey Cup...
 


"Kipper won this game. That's the first one by my count and that's the only positive I saw tonight."

That's good enough for me, since that alone can turn the entire season around.

As a sidenote, I noticed that the Flames have gone from "only one win in the last six" to "points in four straight" with just one game. Spin much, anyone?

We now need 71 points in 52 games, a win rate of 0.683.
 


We now need 71 points in 52 games, a win rate of 0.683.

Uggh. That means we need 73. What a buzz kill.
 

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?