Goaltending

[MAC331]

23 hours ago, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

I missed the game that Rittich played. How did he look confidence wise? Gilles looked solid and seemed comfortable throughout his entire game.

I can't even remember it that well to be honest. Gilles did look good but I would like to see him doing real well in AHL first.

[CheersMan]

I’m sure BT will be looking down every alley for a goaltending solution, the best solution might be status quo.  I wouldn’t be against bringing back both BE and CJ on one-year deals. They are both very good goaltenders, presently at bargain value.  We have good young goaltending prospects in the pipeline that are 1,2,3 years away, I’d hate to box them out.  BE may likely fetch a multi-year deal elsewhere though. 

[phoenix66]

On 4/23/2017 at 5:24 PM, flames-fan-in-jets-land said:

I missed the game that Rittich played. How did he look confidence wise? Gilles looked solid and seemed comfortable throughout his entire game.

he actually looked quite good for a short body of work.. 1 goal on 10 shots , a few of the saves were of the difficult variety

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

he actually looked quite good for a short body of work.. 1 goal on 10 shots , a few of the saves were of the difficult variety

 

 

I think he looked a bit awkward. But at the same time, I could see his upside. It just said to me that he needs more minutes than what he has gotten. 

[MAC331]

14 hours ago, CheersMan said:

I’m sure BT will be looking down every alley for a goaltending solution, the best solution might be status quo.  I wouldn’t be against bringing back both BE and CJ on one-year deals. They are both very good goaltenders, presently at bargain value.  We have good young goaltending prospects in the pipeline that are 1,2,3 years away, I’d hate to box them out.  BE may likely fetch a multi-year deal elsewhere though. 

I wouldn't be against having both back as well. Elliott on a 2 year at no more than 3.5M and Johnson on a 1 year deal with a slight raise.

[The_People1]

6 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

I wouldn't be against having both back as well. Elliott on a 2 year at no more than 3.5M and Johnson on a 1 year deal with a slight raise.

 

Personally, I think this team's morale has been shattered with Elliott in net.  We can't possibly return him and tell the boys we are serious about winning the Cup.

[MAC331]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Personally, I think this team's morale has been shattered with Elliott in net.  We can't possibly return him and tell the boys we are serious about winning the Cup.

That is an assumption on your part only.

[JTech780]

IMO Elliott should be well down the list of starters for next year. 

 

I would exhaust every other option before I round back to Elliott.

 

Maybe Boston wants to make a change and are looking to trade Task.

Maybe Buffalo is willing to trade Lehner for some reason.

Chicago might be willing to move Crawford.

Detroit probably will move either Howard or Mrazek.

Jersey might move Schneider.

Pittsburgh has to move Fleury.

Washington might move Grubauer

 

What are Bishop and Darling looking for in contracts.

 

I exhaust this list before I go back to Elliott.

 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Personally, I think this team's morale has been shattered with Elliott in net.  We can't possibly return him and tell the boys we are serious about winning the Cup.

 

If the team looks at Elliott as being the reason they lost the series, they have other problems.  Perhaps the team blames Bouma for the bad penalty or the deflected goal.  Or for Dougie and Brodie taking weak penalties.  Or Bart for being on the ice for 5 even strength goals against more than goals for.  Or blame the coach for the matchups he purposely sought (Getzlaf vs Monahan).

 

As much as I think that Elliott didn't have good games in the playoffs, there was no faith in CJ being able to come in.  After game 2, the coach should have made a change.    

[The_People1]

55 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

That is an assumption on your part only.

 

Yes, thus "personally".

 

33 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

IMO Elliott should be well down the list of starters for next year. 

 

I would exhaust every other option before I round back to Elliott.

 

Maybe Boston wants to make a change and are looking to trade Task.

Maybe Buffalo is willing to trade Lehner for some reason.

Chicago might be willing to move Crawford.

Detroit probably will move either Howard or Mrazek.

Jersey might move Schneider.

Pittsburgh has to move Fleury.

Washington might move Grubauer

 

What are Bishop and Darling looking for in contracts.

 

I exhaust this list before I go back to Elliott.

 

 

I agree he should be Plan B.  I think most of us does.

 

29 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

If the team looks at Elliott as being the reason they lost the series, they have other problems.  Perhaps the team blames Bouma for the bad penalty or the deflected goal.  Or for Dougie and Brodie taking weak penalties.  Or Bart for being on the ice for 5 even strength goals against more than goals for.  Or blame the coach for the matchups he purposely sought (Getzlaf vs Monahan).

 

As much as I think that Elliott didn't have good games in the playoffs, there was no faith in CJ being able to come in.  After game 2, the coach should have made a change.    

 

If only those were the only bad goals.  But no, they were shooting from the side boards and scoring.  They were crossing the blue line and launching prayers at the net that Elliott failed to stop.

 

Once prone to that, it will always be on the back of our team's mind... The next week goal will spawn the "here we go again" vibes.  At least, I think so.

 

 

[travel_dude]

1 minute ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yes, thus "personally".

 

 

I agree he should be Plan B.  I think most of us does.

 

 

If only those were the only bad goals.  But no, they were shooting from the side boards and scoring.  They were crossing the blue line and launching prayers at the net that Elliott failed to stop.

 

Once prone to that, it will always be on the back of our team's mind... The next week goal will spawn the "here we go again" vibes.  At least, I think so.

 

 

 

Anaheim had a bad start to a game and we score 4 goals on their #1.  They have the option of pulling the goalie and letting him reset.  Bernier closed the Flames down.  Elliott lets in two bad goals in game 2 and we have no option.  No chance to reset.  No chance for the backup to steal the game.

 

Game 3 was not all on Elliott.  We had control of the game and went into a shell.  Failed to score on the replacement goalie.  Allowed Anaheim, to build momentum.  Allowed Anaheim to get a tying goal.  If they were so worried about Elliott letting in another stinker, they sure didn't help him out on the scoresheet.  

[cross16]

ya i'm sorry,, you go up 4-1 in a playoff game and your goalie lets in 2 weak goals to bring them back in the game, that is on your goalie 100%. Elliott cost them game 3 I think there is no doubt about that. having said that he didn't cost them the series so that part I agree with. You score 4 goals in a playoff game and you need to win 99.9% of the time. 

 

Having said that I dont' think we are at a point where Elliott can not come back. He shouldn't, and I don't think will be, Plan A but I also don't think the Flames should get in a position where they get desperate and hand out a bad contract or make a bad trade. Work your options and if it comes back to Elliott being the right fit then he is an option. 

 

I'm not Elliott's biggest fan, wasn't before the playoffs either, but I also think you have to take a step back and not read too much into a few bad days. Elliott was fantastic in the playoffs last year and while he clearly is not a number 1 he did show you he has the ability to carry a team at times int he regular season too. When you look at the first round guys like Crawford, Bobrovsky, Jones and heck even Dubnyk really didnt play well. Have to be cautious over reacting based on 1 playoff series.  Especially, when he was not the main reason you lost the series. 

[MAC331]

20 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yes, thus "personally".

 

 

I agree he should be Plan B.  I think most of us does.

 

 

If only those were the only bad goals.  But no, they were shooting from the side boards and scoring.  They were crossing the blue line and launching prayers at the net that Elliott failed to stop.

 

Once prone to that, it will always be on the back of our team's mind... The next week goal will spawn the "here we go again" vibes.  At least, I think so.

 

 

Do you honestly think the players are that weak mentally ? This is a team that has to get better together and pinning losses on an one player is a cop out.

[JTech780]

3 minutes ago, cross16 said:

ya i'm sorry,, you go up 4-1 in a playoff game and your goalie lets in 2 weak goals to bring them back in the game, that is on your goalie 100%. Elliott cost them game 3 I think there is no doubt about that. having said that he didn't cost them the series so that part I agree with. You score 4 goals in a playoff game and you need to win 99.9% of the time. 

 

Having said that I dont' think we are at a point where Elliott can not come back. He shouldn't, and I don't think will be, Plan A but I also don't think the Flames should get in a position where they get desperate and hand out a bad contract or make a bad trade. Work your options and if it comes back to Elliott being the right fit then he is an option. 

 

I'm not Elliott's biggest fan, wasn't before the playoffs either, but I also think you have to take a step back and not read too much into a few bad days. Elliott was fantastic in the playoffs last year and while he clearly is not a number 1 he did show you he has the ability to carry a team at times int he regular season too. When you look at the first round guys like Crawford, Bobrovsky, Jones and heck even Dubnyk really didnt play well. Have to be cautious over reacting based on 1 playoff series.  Especially, when he was not the main reason you lost the series. 

 

For me Elliott was the main reason we lost the series, I thought we played with or were better than the Ducks for 3 of the 4 games. The difference in the series was goaltending. Gibson put up a .926 save % in the series even with the bad game 3. Elliott had a .880 save %. That is a huge discrepancy.

 

Outside of a 13 game hot streak, which to his credit did get us into the playoffs, Elliott was very sub par. 

[MAC331]

2 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

For me Elliott was the main reason we lost the series, I thought we played with or were better than the Ducks for 3 of the 4 games. The difference in the series was goaltending. Gibson put up a .926 save % in the series even with the bad game 3. Elliott had a .880 save %. That is a huge discrepancy.

 

Outside of a 13 game hot streak, which to his credit did get us into the playoffs, Elliott was very sub par. 

Maybe Gibson was the reason we lost the series ?????

[JA_Boomer]

Here are my thoughts:

 

I think either Gillis or Parsons (perhaps even both) will be an NHL starter (60+ games per season), but it will take time. What we have to do is bridge the gap until they get here. But there's no reason to only bring in stopgap solutions and waste the next 2-3 seasons. We should be searching for NHL starters who can play next year and can challenge Gillis/Parsens in the future as well.

 

We have determined that neither Elliott or Johnson is an NHL starter at this point (or I have). So we should be bringing in two new goalies next season to give us two more "bullets in the gun" to try and find an NHL starter for next season and beyond.

 

I'm up for any combination of Darling, Bernier, Fluery, and Bishop.

 

I'd hesitate on Bishop because I think his dollars and term are more than we need to commit to at this point. Ideally I trade for Fluery and sign Darling.

 

Something I have not heard conclusively. If we sign Elliott after July 1, do we not still owe STL a 3rd rounder as we are RESIGNING him as a Flames UFA? Has anyone read the fine print on that?

 

If we trade Gillis AND Parson to the Pens, could we land Murray? Not sure I would do it as Parson's stock has never been higher but it's something worth considering - bird in hand and all that.

[travel_dude]

18 minutes ago, cross16 said:

ya i'm sorry,, you go up 4-1 in a playoff game and your goalie lets in 2 weak goals to bring them back in the game, that is on your goalie 100%. Elliott cost them game 3 I think there is no doubt about that. having said that he didn't cost them the series so that part I agree with. You score 4 goals in a playoff game and you need to win 99.9% of the time. 

 

Having said that I dont' think we are at a point where Elliott can not come back. He shouldn't, and I don't think will be, Plan A but I also don't think the Flames should get in a position where they get desperate and hand out a bad contract or make a bad trade. Work your options and if it comes back to Elliott being the right fit then he is an option. 

 

I'm not Elliott's biggest fan, wasn't before the playoffs either, but I also think you have to take a step back and not read too much into a few bad days. Elliott was fantastic in the playoffs last year and while he clearly is not a number 1 he did show you he has the ability to carry a team at times int he regular season too. When you look at the first round guys like Crawford, Bobrovsky, Jones and heck even Dubnyk really didnt play well. Have to be cautious over reacting based on 1 playoff series.  Especially, when he was not the main reason you lost the series. 

 

I'm not going to argue who cost them particular games, because it was a collapse of several things.  Untimely penalties, weak goals (not all), deflections, etc. all contributed.  

 

I would be fine with Elliott in a 1b role.  If he is able to earn his way to be the 1a gut, then fine.  You have the option in the playoffs to go with the hot goalie.  Elliott was not strong to finish the season.  Should have had more than him ready to start the series.

[cross16]

28 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

For me Elliott was the main reason we lost the series, I thought we played with or were better than the Ducks for 3 of the 4 games. The difference in the series was goaltending. Gibson put up a .926 save % in the series even with the bad game 3. Elliott had a .880 save %. That is a huge discrepancy.

 

Outside of a 13 game hot streak, which to his credit did get us into the playoffs, Elliott was very sub par. 

 

 

It is, but I also cannot put most of the blame on him when the team scored 2 5 on 5 goals in the entire series. Elliot was good in game 1 and they coudln't find a way to win. He wasn't fantastic in Game 2 but Flames only scored 2 goals. Again in Game 4 yes a weak goal early but plenty of time to come back. With the way the Flames offence played Elliott would have had to be spectacular for them to win the series. I find it pretty unfair to say a goalie cost a team a series because he wasn't spectacular. 

 

Big reason yes, main reason? I can't get there. Need to hold the team accountable too. Don't disagree that for most of the season he wasn't that great. 

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Big reason yes, main reason? I can't get there. Need to hold the team accountable too. Don't disagree that for most of the season he wasn't that great. 

 

Same.

 

I am not blaming the series on Elliott alone.  We need to improve and there is evidence to suggest the team lost confidence in Elliott when he let in those bad goals.  Every bad goal, the team responded poorly for 5 minutes of games time before they got their groove back.

 

I'm also okay trading Gaudreau, well anyone depending on return.

[MAC331]

21 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Same.

 

I am not blaming the series on Elliott alone.  We need to improve and there is evidence to suggest the team lost confidence in Elliott when he let in those bad goals.  Every bad goal, the team responded poorly for 5 minutes of games time before they got their groove back.

 

I'm also okay trading Gaudreau, well anyone depending on return.

If I recall correctly our lead in that 4-1 game evaporated from taking stupid penalties by losing their cool. I don't think that should be confused with a loss of confidence in their goaltender. A lesson in maturity for our team that should come in handy down the road.

[Flyerfan52]

5 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

 

It is, but I also cannot put most of the blame on him when the team scored 2 5 on 5 goals in the entire series. Elliot was good in game 1 and they coudln't find a way to win. He wasn't fantastic in Game 2 but Flames only scored 2 goals. Again in Game 4 yes a weak goal early but plenty of time to come back. With the way the Flames offence played Elliott would have had to be spectacular for them to win the series. I find it pretty unfair to say a goalie cost a team a series because he wasn't spectacular. 

 

Big reason yes, main reason? I can't get there. Need to hold the team accountable too. Don't disagree that for most of the season he wasn't that great. 

Regardless, any A goalie should keep you in games & not need the team to score a lot to make up for weak goals allowed. Elliot allowed 12 goals in 4 games on only 100 shots. That's the worst of any playoff goalie while facing less shots than any other starter. We took 138 shots @ Gibson/Bernier & they stopped all but 9.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Regardless, any A goalie should keep you in games & not need the team to score a lot to make up for weak goals allowed. Elliot allowed 12 goals in 4 games on only 100 shots. That's the worst of any playoff goalie while facing less shots than any other starter. We took 138 shots @ Gibson/Bernier & they stopped all but 9.

That's probably all the more reason to re-sign him.

He was in St Loo for how long?

We gave him a year of, "HEY THIS IS AN AUDITION".

I hate our approach if that's the case.

No reason a person doesn't become inspired. Consider Elliott, last year's run with St. Loo, then abandoned.

A one year base is totally unfair.

There is more there if we'd show half a gram of patience if we'd stop ragging the goalie.

 

Is a goalie making us epic?

Is that what anyone thinks?

It doesn't work that way imho.

 

[travel_dude]

41 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

That's probably all the more reason to re-sign him.

He was in St Loo for how long?

We gave him a year of, "HEY THIS IS AN AUDITION".

I hate our approach if that's the case.

No reason a person doesn't become inspired. Consider Elliott, last year's run with St. Loo, then abandoned.

A one year base is totally unfair.

There is more there if we'd show half a gram of patience if we'd stop ragging the goalie.

 

Is a goalie making us epic?

Is that what anyone thinks?

It doesn't work that way imho.

 

 

Too true.  Elliott has always played 2nd fiddle, rightly or not.

There was talk of re-signing him in October, then that stopped.

He was the savior of the season, until he wasn't.

 

When was the last time we actually re-signed a goalie?

 

Place a little of the blame on the things that were here prior to Elliott coming here.  Struggling d-pairings at times.  Excessive penalties.  Passive d-zone play.  Trouble clearing the puck.  Bad PK.  As for re-signing him, it would be a good show of faith in a player.  Maybe it helps him, instead of looking to the backup.

[conundrumed]

Imho, you don't place blame on anything.

You win as a team and lose as a team.

From there, it's pretty much, figure it out.

Tired of the goalie whining though.You win as a team and lose as a team.

Let's try this again, build your team and try making the goalies inclusive this time, show faith, not the reason to a young team's trials..

Neither Bishop nor Elliott can teach us HOW to win....

Let's just take our experiences and learn. Our G was likely fine but our inexpeience led to chaos.

 

[phoenix66]

On 4/25/2017 at 9:16 PM, travel_dude said:

 

Too true.  Elliott has always played 2nd fiddle, rightly or not.

There was talk of re-signing him in October, then that stopped.

He was the savior of the season, until he wasn't.

 

When was the last time we actually re-signed a goalie?

 

Place a little of the blame on the things that were here prior to Elliott coming here.  Struggling d-pairings at times.  Excessive penalties.  Passive d-zone play.  Trouble clearing the puck.  Bad PK.  As for re-signing him, it would be a good show of faith in a player.  Maybe it helps him, instead of looking to the backup.

If we end up resigning him , its not the end of the world,  and no the loss of the series wasnt all on him . After all we didnt score on a 5-3, we didnt hit empty nets.. we took silly penalties.

Stating full acceptance that he got us to the dance , it becomes about taking the nest step.

No , hes not the reason we lost .. but he didnt help us win either.. i know it sounds like a play on words but there is a difference.

His highs are very high..but his lows are very low..  we need consistency.. Carey Price on a bad day can still get you a win.. thats the difference.

We must ask ourselves, WHY with all his good stats has no team until now given him the true #1 spot?.. maybe they saw something that made them nervous about his being consistent?

Again ..not the end of the world if we give him another year ..but I feel strongly he doesnt fit into the "raising of the bar"