Blow It Up?

[robrob74]

11 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I have to admit, I never thought he'd push the rebuild out another year, but...he did.

 

Whether that is a compliment or not is a matter of personal opinion.

 
 

reality is it's probably in two years. They'll trade a first in this years draft and then maybe even the one we got for Tkachuk to go for it at the deadline. We will win a round or two and that will be a success. Is it enough to keep huberdeau?

[travel_dude]

8 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 
 

reality is it's probably in two years. They'll trade a first in this years draft and then maybe even the one we got for Tkachuk to go for it at the deadline. We will win a round or two and that will be a success. Is it enough to keep huberdeau?

 

So, I have to ask.  Do you think we did anything this past playoffs?  Was losing in the 2nd round a failure? 

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, I have to ask.  Do you think we did anything this past playoffs?  Was losing in the 2nd round a failure? 

yes. 
 

i liked that they played with effort. But I didn't think the execution was there. So yes, a failure. They barely beat Dallas. Dallas showed Edmonton that the Flames could be beat. But at the same time, Edmonton forced them to play their game. 
 

I think we heard too often Calgary can play any style but I think that they needed to play their game to beat the oilers. The way the team was "all-in," I expected to get to the conference finals. I get the refs changed the outlook too, but I think the flames are poor at defending in transition coming our way. The oilers exposed that.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

yes. 
 

i liked that they played with effort. But I didn't think the execution was there. So yes, a failure. They barely beat Dallas. Dallas showed Edmonton that the Flames could be beat. But at the same time, Edmonton forced them to play their game. 
 

I think we heard too often Calgary can play any style but I think that they needed to play their game to beat the oilers. The way the team was "all-in," I expected to get to the conference finals. I get the refs changed the outlook too, but I think the flames are poor at defending in transition coming our way. The oilers exposed that.

 

Iwo things for me in round 1.  We ran into a hot goalie.  Made Vasilevskiy look like a stringer.  The 2nd thing was Tkachuk focused on one player and forgot about what made him good.  I can almost guarantee that EDM would have lost to them.  I don't think it showed EDM anything about our team.

 

EDM series we decided to play without defensive structure, from the forwards to pinching D.  Too many weak penalties from reaching when we lost position.  NO matter what our game play is, defensive structure is a key part of it.  We forgot that part.

[sak22]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

yes. 
 

i liked that they played with effort. But I didn't think the execution was there. So yes, a failure. They barely beat Dallas. Dallas showed Edmonton that the Flames could be beat. But at the same time, Edmonton forced them to play their game. 
 

I think we heard too often Calgary can play any style but I think that they needed to play their game to beat the oilers. The way the team was "all-in," I expected to get to the conference finals. I get the refs changed the outlook too, but I think the flames are poor at defending in transition coming our way. The oilers exposed that.

They were two very different series, one series had 29 goals in 7 the other had 45 in 5.  The barely won series had close to a 100 shot differential in favor of the Flames, it wasn't a recipe for how to beat the Flames it was one goalie playing out of his mind.  Keep in mind Edmonton also had a lot of trouble in their first round against the Kings, Tampa faced elimination against the Leafs and played very badly in that series at times, the Rangers fell down 3-1 to the Pens and needed to rally against a team playing a 3rd stringer.  So neither Tampa, Edmonton or the Rangers could say they had impressive runs either because they almost lost in the first round.  

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, I have to ask.  Do you think we did anything this past playoffs?  Was losing in the 2nd round a failure? 

 

This is going to come as a surprise to a lot of people but it's actually a yes for me as well

[zima]

We should never lose to the Oilslicks in the North.

[travel_dude]

6 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

This is going to come as a surprise to a lot of people but it's actually a yes for me as well

 

Two questions, one answer.  When you say a surprise, that implies the first question was the yes.

[robrob74]

23 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Iwo things for me in round 1.  We ran into a hot goalie.  Made Vasilevskiy look like a stringer.  The 2nd thing was Tkachuk focused on one player and forgot about what made him good.  I can almost guarantee that EDM would have lost to them.  I don't think it showed EDM anything about our team.

 

EDM series we decided to play without defensive structure, from the forwards to pinching D.  Too many weak penalties from reaching when we lost position.  NO matter what our game play is, defensive structure is a key part of it.  We forgot that part.

i actually think we made it easy on their goalie. I think you were saying that in the first few games. We didn't make the goalie have to move enough to get him out of position or try to make up for an overcompensation. 
 

maybe you're right, maybe it just showed Edmonton the flames were beatable. 

[robrob74]

25 minutes ago, sak22 said:

They were two very different series, one series had 29 goals in 7 the other had 45 in 5.  The barely won series had close to a 100 shot differential in favor of the Flames, it wasn't a recipe for how to beat the Flames it was one goalie playing out of his mind.  Keep in mind Edmonton also had a lot of trouble in their first round against the Kings, Tampa faced elimination against the Leafs and played very badly in that series at times, the Rangers fell down 3-1 to the Pens and needed to rally against a team playing a 3rd stringer.  So neither Tampa, Edmonton or the Rangers could say they had impressive runs either because they almost lost in the first round.  

 

yup, but I also think we made it way too easy on their goalie in the Dallas series. Dallas took away the possibilities of getting ottinger to move side to side and do all he had to do was square up. So we played safe perimeter hockey. 

[travel_dude]

4 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

i actually think we made it easy on their goalie. I think you were saying that in the first few games. We didn't make the goalie have to move enough to get him out of position or try to make up for an overcompensation. 
 

maybe you're right, maybe it just showed Edmonton the flames were beatable. 

 

And LA showed that EDM was capable of imploding.

Really though, the Flames had an insane amount of shot attempts.

The shots we fired that reached the goalie were not just flip shots.

 

I hate losing to EDM, but it was no blowout.

 

[sak22]

21 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

yup, but I also think we made it way too easy on their goalie in the Dallas series. Dallas took away the possibilities of getting ottinger to move side to side and do all he had to do was square up. So we played safe perimeter hockey. 

But we played in their end way more than our end, whether we made it easier he was still far busier.  I think you judge the Flames with a different lens, because there really wasn't much Dallas was doing right that series I don't think teams design being outshot by 40 in an elimination game.

[jjgallow]

53 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Two questions, one answer.  When you say a surprise, that implies the first question was the yes.

 

Lol.

 

Last year we had a contract year for our  best 2 players, and Markstrom had the best year of his career.   And even then, in the playoffs he was a problem.

 

So IMHO it had more to do with us overachieving than underachieving. 

 

I will throw a bone though...

 

Huberdeau and Weegar are now both essentially entering contract years.  With all the positives and negatives which come with that.

[conundrumed]

2 hours ago, sak22 said:

But we played in their end way more than our end, whether we made it easier he was still far busier.  I think you judge the Flames with a different lens, because there really wasn't much Dallas was doing right that series I don't think teams design being outshot by 40 in an elimination game.

I agree. That series we witnessed a great young goalie that grabbed the starter reigns during the regular season.

That was an amazing feat for Oettinger. Clearly broke out last year. Dallas could barely compete with us but for an incredible G performance for a dude that turned 23 in December. Still RFA without arb rights.

Pay the guy. They're good in net for a long while.

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, sak22 said:

But we played in their end way more than our end, whether we made it easier he was still far busier.  I think you judge the Flames with a different lens, because there really wasn't much Dallas was doing right that series I don't think teams design being outshot by 40 in an elimination game.

 

youre taking into account the the Flames had zero desire to get into the scoring areas or moving him side to side. Dallas played a tight in zone defensive game where they yes let the flames shoot more often, but not many of those shots were high danger. Nothing about that series told me the flames would run away with it apart from game 1z being in the other teams zone doesn't always mean domination. I get that sounds counter intuitive but we have historically been a team that throws a lot of shots from everywhere, get goalies engaged and then say, wow we dominated. I don't think we did very well in Dallas series and took OT to win. Hot goalie or not, the flames were not willing to pay the price to win and it showed 

[conundrumed]

9 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

youre taking into account the the Flames had zero desire to get into the scoring areas or moving him side to side. Dallas played a tight in zone defensive game where they yes let the flames shoot more often, but not many of those shots were high danger. Nothing about that series told me the flames would run away with it apart from game 1z being in the other teams zone doesn't always mean domination. I get that sounds counter intuitive but we have historically been a team that throws a lot of shots from everywhere, get goalies engaged and then say, wow we dominated. I don't think we did very well in Dallas series and took OT to win. Hot goalie or not, the flames were not willing to pay the price to win and it showed 

I get what you're saying, but I think you're underplaying just how good Oettinger was.

He WAS the story of that series. He had a ton of highlight reel saves. Did we pump his SA stats up? Probably. But you can't deny that he was spectacular. He was the story of the playoffs in the 1st round as far as performance goes.

You can't take anything away from him, that's a 23 yr old goalie to boot.

That was an amazing clinic that he had going on. Can't wait to watch his future, he'll be challenging the Vas/Shesterkin rarified air. And he ain't Russian.

[travel_dude]

4 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I get what you're saying, but I think you're underplaying just how good Oettinger was.

He WAS the story of that series. He had a ton of highlight reel saves. Did we pump his SA stats up? Probably. But you can't deny that he was spectacular. He was the story of the playoffs in the 1st round as far as performance goes.

You can't take anything away from him, that's a 23 yr old goalie to boot.

That was an amazing clinic that he had going on. Can't wait to watch his future, he'll be challenging the Vas/Shesterkin rarified air. And he ain't Russian.

 

I was looking back at HD chances.  Not all games have them listed for each period.  In game 7 alone, the Flames had 16.  That didn't include OT.  We lost game six for a couple of reasons.  One being we were absolutely owned on faceoffs.  The other being horrible play in our zone.

 

Markstrom also was the big story of the first round.  Led Flames goals for SA% in the playoffs.  When you are facing a lightsout goalie, yours better be matching them when the ice tilts the other way.  We saw that in game 1 and game 7 just to name a couple.  

[robrob74]

11 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I get what you're saying, but I think you're underplaying just how good Oettinger was.

He WAS the story of that series. He had a ton of highlight reel saves. Did we pump his SA stats up? Probably. But you can't deny that he was spectacular. He was the story of the playoffs in the 1st round as far as performance goes.

You can't take anything away from him, that's a 23 yr old goalie to boot.

That was an amazing clinic that he had going on. Can't wait to watch his future, he'll be challenging the Vas/Shesterkin rarified air. And he ain't Russian.

 

i really don't mean to. I thought he played great too. I just think Bowness knew it was the only way to beat the flames, to clog the slot, block when possible and score in transition. Not saying the Flames weren't in their zone, just that I think I only remember one goal where we had him having to slide side to side after game one. 

[conundrumed]

8 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

i really don't mean to. I thought he played great too. I just think Bowness knew it was the only way to beat the flames, to clog the slot, block when possible and score in transition. Not saying the Flames weren't in their zone, just that I think I only remember one goal where we had him having to slide side to side after game one. 

That's because he saved the other ones.lol

[travel_dude]

13 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

i really don't mean to. I thought he played great too. I just think Bowness knew it was the only way to beat the flames, to clog the slot, block when possible and score in transition. Not saying the Flames weren't in their zone, just that I think I only remember one goal where we had him having to slide side to side after game one. 

 

You may remember most of the season looked that way too.  The PP is really the only time you can get a goalie looking one way and the puck goes the other way.  That and an odd man rush.  For all the PP goals we scored, there was a theme.  Guy in the slot.  Less tips this past year.  You can only do side to side when the team doesn't defend the pass.  Besides, Otter was one of the best guys I have seen at reacting to the shot.  I watched at least one save thinking how the F did he get his glove over there or his blocker in that spot.  The only spot that would prevent a goal.

 

I admit that at times I got frustrated with shots on the blocker side, but it was the only place you could beat him cleanly.  Bread scored one that I still don't know how it went in.  It must have changed direction off the defender's stick.  

[tmac70]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

i really don't mean to. I thought he played great too. I just think Bowness knew it was the only way to beat the flames, to clog the slot, block when possible and score in transition. Not saying the Flames weren't in their zone, just that I think I only remember one goal where we had him having to slide side to side after game one. 

Thats how the finals were played, in lanes blocked shots, clogging the neutraul zone. Our faults in the Coilers series is to many turnovers, and missed assignments, Markestrom was below average and the reffing was horrific. If anyone watched them play the Av's, Av's  did excatly what we tried by slowing Mc Baby down, but it wasn't called., 

[phoenix66]

On 7/30/2022 at 7:23 PM, tmac70 said:

Thats how the finals were played, in lanes blocked shots, clogging the neutraul zone. Our faults in the Coilers series is to many turnovers, and missed assignments, Markestrom was below average and the reffing was horrific. If anyone watched them play the Av's, Av's  did excatly what we tried by slowing Mc Baby down, but it wasn't called., 

Ya to me it was the perfect storm of misqueues. 

We manhandled the Oilers for the start and finish of game one . Johnny in one of his columbus interviews even confirmed it .they felt like " we got this"..  

Started game 2 the same way .. at that point they went away from the right way to play thinking we can just outscore then.. that's maturity and experience..

 

At the same time .. our best dman at taking away cross crease passes was out .. kyllington was lost without Tanev and it showed .. 

Tkachuk went invisible .. and for the most part Johnny did too because he is at his best generating from the perimeter and they took that away.. and without tkachuk at his best now everything is perimeter ..nearly all our shots were totally seeable by Smith.. 

 

Nobody was stopping zone entries 

 

This is why I say We are a better team .right now ..than the one that played game 5..

Huberdeau is just as good a playmaker as Johnny but he will do it in tight in the traffic areas . Weegar can do everything Tanev can do and some things even better . 

 

Now we just need to solve getting a playmakng #2 center who can set up Toffoli. 

[rickross]

On 7/30/2022 at 11:47 AM, jjgallow said:

 

This is going to come as a surprise to a lot of people but it's actually a yes for me as well

It’s a failure anytime you don’t win the Cup! Regarding our recent playoff run it , especially the 2nd Rd vs the Oilers, I feel we got out coached. Sutter did not make the necessary adjustments and losing Tanev really exposed our D. We could have won that series or Atleast performed better but we got outplayed pretty bad, in just about every area. The series wasn’t as close as some recall. 

[travel_dude]

19 minutes ago, rickross said:

It’s a failure anytime you don’t win the Cup! Regarding our recent playoff run it , especially the 2nd Rd vs the Oilers, I feel we got out coached. Sutter did not make the necessary adjustments and losing Tanev really exposed our D. We could have won that series or Atleast performed better but we got outplayed pretty bad, in just about every area. The series wasn’t as close as some recall. 

 

So, flip around the standing coming into the playoffs.

NAS gets the higher seed by the skin of their teeth.

Instead of burning up the team against DAL, we get the broken Preds.

The Central is still a dogfight and one of COL or STL coming out of it.

The Pacific has a rested CGY against EDM.

Shoulda woulda coulda, but I don't see a blowout and a loss in the BOA first two.

 

If we won that, I don't think it's a sweep by COL or STL.

 

We've had bad luck in the playoff resulting from seeding for as long as I can remember.

Not that we had cup winners, but sure got the worst teams for us to face.

[rickross]

2 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, flip around the standing coming into the playoffs.

NAS gets the higher seed by the skin of their teeth.

Instead of burning up the team against DAL, we get the broken Preds.

The Central is still a dogfight and one of COL or STL coming out of it.

The Pacific has a rested CGY against EDM.

Shoulda woulda coulda, but I don't see a blowout and a loss in the BOA first two.

 

If we won that, I don't think it's a sweep by COL or STL.

 

We've had bad luck in the playoff resulting from seeding for as long as I can remember.

Not that we had cup winners, but sure got the worst teams for us to face.

This year I actually felt this was one of our easiest paths to the Cup. Dallas and Edmonton stood in our way of the Conference final and we failed. We damn near got swept by the Oilers. Yes I know the games were close but we still lost the series 4-1. Not even close!

 

Dallas took us to the brink..we lost Taney in that series and needed some magic from JH to win it in OT game 7. I don’t see us having a path as “easy” as this again, Vegas will be back , Canuck’s will be better and the Kings should  be in the mix again. This year was one of our best chances in ages, we likely wouldn’t have got past the Avs but we should not have lost to the Oilers, not in the fashion we did Atleast.