Goaltending

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, travel_dude said:

 

With CGY vs ANA, it must have been in the heads of every player that has played for the Flames since 2004.  

Pretty much...at first it was a couple losses , nobody noticed.. then it became a streak..then a drought.  Now every time we go there , it becomes the major story , you can't play for the Flames without being told, interviewed, asked about the losing streak in Anaheim.. and if that didnt do it.. chants of "you cant win here " show up .

They say all the right things , but it's in their head..and the press and public make sure it stays there .

You play tighter, afraid to make a mistake..feel you have to play the perfect game.. a bad goal deflates you .. 4-1 becomes 4-2 and you start to think "here we go again "

 

Had the opportunity once to sit and chat with Perry Berezan..Great guy , told me the story of when Edmonton was in Calgary's heads in the 80's

aside from the obvious Smith - Own- Goal.. the reason we beat Edmonton in 7 games in 1986, was Bob Johnson . He excitedly told his team before the series" I've figured out how to beat Edmonton".. he had a "7 point plan".. he "knew their weaknesses" and if they just followed what he told them they would beat them in 7 games.. even told them it would involve losing 3 games.. he just wasn't sure which ones they'd be.The team bought into it.

Bottom line, he got Edmonton out of their heads and put it on the ice 

[MAC331]

23 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Pretty much...at first it was a couple losses , nobody noticed.. then it became a streak..then a drought.  Now every time we go there , it becomes the major story , you can't play for the Flames without being told, interviewed, asked about the losing streak in Anaheim.. and if that didnt do it.. chants of "you cant win here " show up .

They say all the right things , but it's in their head..and the press and public make sure it stays there .

You play tighter, afraid to make a mistake..feel you have to play the perfect game.. a bad goal deflates you .. 4-1 becomes 4-2 and you start to think "here we go again "

 

Had the opportunity once to sit and chat with Perry Berezan..Great guy , told me the story of when Edmonton was in Calgary's heads in the 80's

aside from the obvious Smith - Own- Goal.. the reason we beat Edmonton in 7 games in 1986, was Bob Johnson . He excitedly told his team before the series" I've figured out how to beat Edmonton".. he had a "7 point plan".. he "knew their weaknesses" and if they just followed what he told them they would beat them in 7 games.. even told them it would involve losing 3 games.. he just wasn't sure which ones they'd be.The team bought into it.

Bottom line, he got Edmonton out of their heads and put it on the ice 

This to shall pass

[phoenix66]

1 minute ago, MAC331 said:

This to shall pass

yup.. I think it will come down to a goaltender (not saying who it should be , or who we should target to get it done.. just A Goaltender in general)  coming in and saying "guys I got this"  and making a couple of big saves early 

[travel_dude]

47 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

Pretty much...at first it was a couple losses , nobody noticed.. then it became a streak..then a drought.  Now every time we go there , it becomes the major story , you can't play for the Flames without being told, interviewed, asked about the losing streak in Anaheim.. and if that didnt do it.. chants of "you cant win here " show up .

They say all the right things , but it's in their head..and the press and public make sure it stays there .

You play tighter, afraid to make a mistake..feel you have to play the perfect game.. a bad goal deflates you .. 4-1 becomes 4-2 and you start to think "here we go again "

 

Had the opportunity once to sit and chat with Perry Berezan..Great guy , told me the story of when Edmonton was in Calgary's heads in the 80's

aside from the obvious Smith - Own- Goal.. the reason we beat Edmonton in 7 games in 1986, was Bob Johnson . He excitedly told his team before the series" I've figured out how to beat Edmonton".. he had a "7 point plan".. he "knew their weaknesses" and if they just followed what he told them they would beat them in 7 games.. even told them it would involve losing 3 games.. he just wasn't sure which ones they'd be.The team bought into it.

Bottom line, he got Edmonton out of their heads and put it on the ice 

 

I'm sure that every game in Anaheim is just another game to the players.  The media like the story line.  The fans get upset over another loss. It's no different than dominating EDM for their re-build years; losing a game is important to the fans.

 

Every loss in the last 12 years is different.  There's no one piece that is consistent in the losses.  

• Is it goaltending; well even Kipper failed to prevent the tying goal when Getzlaf gloved it in while laying in the crease (he laughed about it)
• Is goalscoring the issue; at times we don't manufacture enough good scoring chances
• Are our players getting pushed around or the coach can't adapt to playing against the trap
• Is our defense leaky?
• Do we take penalties too much?  

 

Hockey has changed so much over those years.  The teams have changed so much.  The way a team plays in front of a goalie has as much or more to do with the game result.

 

[phoenix66]

43 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm sure that every game in Anaheim is just another game to the players.  The media like the story line.  The fans get upset over another loss. It's no different than dominating EDM for their re-build years; losing a game is important to the fans.

 

Every loss in the last 12 years is different.  There's no one piece that is consistent in the losses.  

• Is it goaltending; well even Kipper failed to prevent the tying goal when Getzlaf gloved it in while laying in the crease (he laughed about it)
• Is goalscoring the issue; at times we don't manufacture enough good scoring chances
• Are our players getting pushed around or the coach can't adapt to playing against the trap
• Is our defense leaky?
• Do we take penalties too much?  

 

Hockey has changed so much over those years.  The teams have changed so much.  The way a team plays in front of a goalie has as much or more to do with the game result.

 

 

Players are the most superstitious people on the planet , there is no way ..none.. that this is not in their heads, and will be until they break it .

I can buy a bad case of coincidence up to maybe 10 games max. The fact we keep finding different ways to do it just adds to their frustration 

 

A better goalie is not THE answer, as you said we had the best back there and didn't get it done,  but its certainly a piece of the puzzle. I virtually guarantee when we do break it, it will be because the goalie stole the game. Then the players will come around cuz it wont be a thing anymore.

If it were me , I would have started Gillies in Anaheim for his 1st start..not LA..  they had nothing to win or lose at that point.

As it was, they tried to start Johnson.. but unfortunately he got injured in 5 min.. if the intent was to give Elliot a rest in the last game, should have had a rookie backing up 

[MAC331]

11 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

 

Players are the most superstitious people on the planet , there is no way ..none.. that this is not in their heads, and will be until they break it .

I can buy a bad case of coincidence up to maybe 10 games max. The fact we keep finding different ways to do it just adds to their frustration 

 

A better goalie is not THE answer, as you said we had the best back there and didn't get it done,  but its certainly a piece of the puzzle. I virtually guarantee when we do break it, it will be because the goalie stole the game. Then the players will come around cuz it wont be a thing anymore.

If it were me , I would have started Gillies in Anaheim for his 1st start..not LA..  they had nothing to win or lose at that point

So if Gilles lost in ANA he would be mentally ruined for life ? we would have to trade him to the East.

[phoenix66]

2 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

So if Gilles lost in ANA he would be mentally ruined for life ? we would have to trade him to the East.

nope, thats precisely why he was the best choice.. his 1st NHL.. a dozen reasons why It would have meant nothing to his development had they lost 

1st NHL game

Meaningless game

No pressure whatsoever 

Kipper never won there, why should it affect him?

 

but , had he won.. it would have helped not only him , but the mental approach of the team going forward into the playoffs .

On the flip side, personally I think the intent was to give Johnson a look to know we had a plan B in round one .. he did after all have the only win against them all year 

[MAC331]

35 minutes ago, phoenix66 said:

nope, thats precisely why he was the best choice.. his 1st NHL.. a dozen reasons why It would have meant nothing to his development had they lost 

1st NHL game

Meaningless game

No pressure whatsoever 

Kipper never won there, why should it affect him?

 

but , had he won.. it would have helped not only him , but the mental approach of the team going forward into the playoffs .

On the flip side, personally I think the intent was to give Johnson a look to know we had a plan B in round one .. he did after all have the only win against them all year 

I wouldn't get overly fixated on the ANA jinx, it will change as time goes by and players change. The progress I like is that every game was a difference of 1 goal and we were in every game.

[JTech780]

One goalie that doesn't get talked about a lot is Louis Domingue. He has put up pretty solid numbers playing on a terrible Arizona team. He is 25, he has the ideal size at 6'3". Treliving should be very familiar with him. If Arizona decides to protect Smith and leave Domingue available, Calgary might want to work out a deal with Vegas to acquire him.

[Prids]

Trying to acquire Domingue falls into the same category as all the other backup goalies out there. Rantaa, Lack, Grubauer, Condon, ect. Sure, he has decent numbers, but are we expecting him to take be relied upon for the number 1 job next year?

Just not sure what the answer is. We either bring in a bonafide number 1, which will cost us quite a bit. And depending on contract situation could spell the end for our goalies developing in the system. Or go with a 1a/1b situation again and hope it works......if its the 1a/1b situation are any of the above goalies better than Elliot...I would say not.

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

 

Players are the most superstitious people on the planet , there is no way ..none.. that this is not in their heads, and will be until they break it .

I can buy a bad case of coincidence up to maybe 10 games max. The fact we keep finding different ways to do it just adds to their frustration 

 

A better goalie is not THE answer, as you said we had the best back there and didn't get it done,  but its certainly a piece of the puzzle. I virtually guarantee when we do break it, it will be because the goalie stole the game. Then the players will come around cuz it wont be a thing anymore.

If it were me , I would have started Gillies in Anaheim for his 1st start..not LA..  they had nothing to win or lose at that point.

As it was, they tried to start Johnson.. but unfortunately he got injured in 5 min.. if the intent was to give Elliot a rest in the last game, should have had a rookie backing up 

 

 

Get them another teams' jerseys and wear them under ours? Our tshirts. Wear them in warm up?

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

Players are the most superstitious people on the planet , there is no way ..none.. that this is not in their heads, and will be until they break it .

I can buy a bad case of coincidence up to maybe 10 games max. The fact we keep finding different ways to do it just adds to their frustration 

 

Only two years since 2008-09 have the Flames made the playoffs, so they weren't very good teams those years.  Average out about two games per year played in Anaheim (yes they have beat them in Calgary) and we are talking about 12 games playing with a crap team.  Gio and Backlund are probably the only players that have played all those years since 2009, though likely not every single game.

[phoenix66]

3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Only two years since 2008-09 have the Flames made the playoffs, so they weren't very good teams those years.  Average out about two games per year played in Anaheim (yes they have beat them in Calgary) and we are talking about 12 games playing with a crap team.  Gio and Backlund are probably the only players that have played all those years since 2009, though likely not every single game.

and yet during that time we had no issues beating Detroit and Pittsburgh.. better teams than Anaheim

but i guess you're right .. there is no mental aspect to the game of hockey at all... a 28 game losing streak happens all the time and is 100% pure coincidence

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

and yet during that time we had no issues beating Detroit and Pittsburgh.. better teams than Anaheim

but i guess you're right .. there is no mental aspect to the game of hockey at all... a 28 game losing streak happens all the time and is 100% pure coincidence

 

You know if it was the same team that lost 28 or 29 in a row, I would agree with you.  It's not.

I think you are projecting your own feelings about a particular team onto the Flames players.  Maybe it enters their minds about as much as a team they always beat.

Think about it for a minute, then move on.  

[phoenix66]

45 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

You know if it was the same team that lost 28 or 29 in a row, I would agree with you.  It's not.

I think you are projecting your own feelings about a particular team onto the Flames players.  Maybe it enters their minds about as much as a team they always beat.

Think about it for a minute, then move on.  

exactly , you always have success against a team.. you go in looser.. you're confident. It affects your play

[zima]

We don't need a goalie costing us a kings ransom we have the players we need right under or noises Gillies Rittch and Parsons top 3 go with them let the chips fall were they may Im in no rush to get to the playoffs and leave in the first 2 rounds what do we gain from a couple of rounds and low end draft picks. I thought we learned our lesson with dutter what did we gain given up our top picks to make it to second round if lucky and what pick 22nd to 30 in first round never got us any where. I think a little excitement watching our home grown kids fight for a top spot as #1 and see what they can do.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, zima said:

We don't need a goalie costing us a kings ransom we have the players we need right under or noises Gillies Rittch and Parsons top 3 go with them let the chips fall were they may Im in no rush to get to the playoffs and leave in the first 2 rounds what do we gain from a couple of rounds and low end draft picks. I thought we learned our lesson with dutter what did we gain given up our top picks to make it to second round if lucky and what pick 22nd to 30 in first round never got us any where. I think a little excitement watching our home grown kids fight for a top spot as #1 and see what they can do.

 

If you go that route, I hope you don't mind possibly ruining our two top goalie prospects.  Neither has been consistent enough in the AHL to be considered as ready for starters in the NHL.  

 

Let's say they go that route.  Miss the playoffs for a few years, but not bad enough to get a good pick.  Picking 14th or picking between 16 and 31.  Or picking as low as 6th again.  Five years from then you have a good NHL player or another marginal player.

 

On the other hand, you have teams like the Rangers or Candiens that compete for the cup almost every year.  They are not as good as the Flames but have much better goaltending.  Perhaps that's where the secret to winning the cup lies; having a good team and great goaltending.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

If you go that route, I hope you don't mind possibly ruining our two top goalie prospects.  Neither has been consistent enough in the AHL to be considered as ready for starters in the NHL.  

 

Let's say they go that route.  Miss the playoffs for a few years, but not bad enough to get a good pick.  Picking 14th or picking between 16 and 31.  Or picking as low as 6th again.  Five years from then you have a good NHL player or another marginal player.

 

On the other hand, you have teams like the Rangers or Candiens that compete for the cup almost every year.  They are not as good as the Flames but have much better goaltending.  Perhaps that's where the secret to winning the cup lies; having a good team and great goaltending.

 

Or a great team and average to good goaltending. 

 

Chicago with Niemi and early Crawford. The onus is on the goalie to stop the ones they should be stopping. But I still like the idea of having a really good goalie.

 

is someone crazy enough to grade the last ten to twenty cup winning goalies? 

[travel_dude]

52 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Or a great team and average to good goaltending. 

 

Chicago with Niemi and early Crawford. The onus is on the goalie to stop the ones they should be stopping. But I still like the idea of having a really good goalie.

 

is someone crazy enough to grade the last ten to twenty cup winning goalies? 

 

PITTS had Murray last year and MAF the other time.

LA had Quick.

Chicago had Crawford at the top of his game.  

This year the only ones left standing have had MVP calibre goalie performances for some or most of the playoffs.

 

Just my opinion.  I want the best goalie now and for years to come.

[cross16]

Off the top of my head the only 2 goalies that won cups with average level goaltending are Detroit with Osgood and Chicago with Niemi. Everyone else won with good to great goaltending. However, what doesn't get mention enough is timing. Is cam Ward a great goalie? Most would say no but he was very good when Carolina won the cup. 

 

Not always about having the best goalie, Montreal has proven that, but whose goalie is playing the best at that time. 

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

PITTS had Murray last year and MAF the other time.

LA had Quick.

Chicago had Crawford at the top of his game.  

This year the only ones left standing have had MVP calibre goalie performances for some or most of the playoffs.

 

Just my opinion.  I want the best goalie now and for years to come.

 

A lot said Crawford sucked in the Hawks 2nd cup, but was good in the 3rd.

 

but I do want the best goalie too.

[travel_dude]

11 hours ago, cross16 said:

Off the top of my head the only 2 goalies that won cups with average level goaltending are Detroit with Osgood and Chicago with Niemi. Everyone else won with good to great goaltending. However, what doesn't get mention enough is timing. Is cam Ward a great goalie? Most would say no but he was very good when Carolina won the cup. 

 

Not always about having the best goalie, Montreal has proven that, but whose goalie is playing the best at that time. 

CAR had a one year window with Ward.  Same with Niemi.

 

Timing is very important, but you can't just limit yourself to the chance of your goalie having a Vezna year and MVP playoff.  You have to have the team improving or stable for a few years, while having good to great goaltending.  The Sharks and Caps have come close to winning or getting to the Finals, but have enough weaknesses on their team not related to goalies.

[MAC331]

4 hours ago, travel_dude said:

CAR had a one year window with Ward.  Same with Niemi.

 

Timing is very important, but you can't just limit yourself to the chance of your goalie having a Vezna year and MVP playoff.  You have to have the team improving or stable for a few years, while having good to great goaltending.  The Sharks and Caps have come close to winning or getting to the Finals, but have enough weaknesses on their team not related to goalies.

I don't know if it is even about weaknesses when it comes to playoff hockey, sometimes its the least beat up team and getting timely hot goaltending. You build the best team you can to get you the best possible record throughout the season. Both WAS and SJS are good teams but playoff hockey is about one team out playing the other.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

I don't know if it is even about weaknesses when it comes to playoff hockey, sometimes its the least beat up team and getting timely hot goaltending. You build the best team you can to get you the best possible record throughout the season. Both WAS and SJS are good teams but playoff hockey is about one team out playing the other.

 

The weaknesses I am talking about were aging players (Marleau and Big Joe), injury before playoff (Big Joe) or disappearing players (Ovi).  Last year, SJS was close to a cup, but fell to a superior goalie.  This year they weren't even close.

[MAC331]

14 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

The weaknesses I am talking about were aging players (Marleau and Big Joe), injury before playoff (Big Joe) or disappearing players (Ovi).  Last year, SJS was close to a cup, but fell to a superior goalie.  This year they weren't even close.

Those aging players and the disappearing ones mentioned are the only reason they are in the playoffs so I don't see them as weaknesses. Like I said most times it is the least injured with the hot goaltending that wins.