Playoffs GDT - FLAMES @ Oilers - Thurs 26 May 2022

[robrob74]

39 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

 

I agree that the officiating wasn't the reason the Flames lost nor was it a major factor, but it was absolutely terrible, but it has been in the other series as well.

 

I think Calgary's lack of high end speed stood out in this series. We just couldn't keep up with Edmonton's speed. They have guys on every line that can flat out fly and we just don't. Normally we can overcome that with playing fast, but when your opponent combines speed with playing fast it makes it hard to compete.

 

We really needed Markstrom to just be even average to have a chance, because it's not like Smith was great in this series either he was just slightly better than Markstrom.

 

 

i also just don’t think the Flames made it hard enough on Smith. They really stopped testing him after we went up 2-0 in game 2. Albeit that game had the most egregious reffing I’ve ever witnessed. And yes that game changed the momentum of the series. Instead of up 2-0 in the series it is 1-1. 
 

i liked the flames level of compete though. It wasn’t like they were no-shows in previous years. They just misspent their energy by not getting to what made them succeed most of the year. 

[travel_dude]

3 hours ago, JTech780 said:

 

I agree that the officiating wasn't the reason the Flames lost nor was it a major factor, but it was absolutely terrible, but it has been in the other series as well.

 

I think Calgary's lack of high end speed stood out in this series. We just couldn't keep up with Edmonton's speed. They have guys on every line that can flat out fly and we just don't. Normally we can overcome that with playing fast, but when your opponent combines speed with playing fast it makes it hard to compete.

 

We really needed Markstrom to just be even average to have a chance, because it's not like Smith was great in this series either he was just slightly better than Markstrom.

 

 

I don't think we ever played this year to that kind of speed.  Any time we tried against this team in particular, was a barn burner.  You don't win with speed alone and you don't lose by being a slower team.  What was it we won?  55 games?  What we have been good at is quick strike.  Scoring first, scoring 2 in a row.  We did that in Game 1 and 5, but we sure didn't do anything after we get the strike.  It's happened this year in other games.  But nowhere like this. 

 

Something had to be off with Marky.  The final BOA regular season game was a B2B, so I won't use that.  He looked different between game 7 and game 1.  I don't know if he was fighting an injury there or what.  He didn't face a ton in the OT against Dallas, so there may have been something in game 1 of BOA.  Maybe someone fell on his glove hand?  Somebody pointed that out in the GDT thread, so it's very possible.  3 goals to the glove side after that?  Too coincidental.     

[travel_dude]

The only saving grace is that the zebra team will be cut in half by the end of this round.

Can't imaging McCauley/Furlatt or Kozari/Lee will be back.

They normally are gone after they have bad series.

[Carty]

🙁<------  Carty today....   and I'll probably be rattled about this one for a while yet...   

 

Losing is one thing, having braindead refs affect the outcome of a series including a key game is another...

 

One of the worst parts is listening to Coiler fans gloat...   A good old friend of mine included...   He called me up after the game, and the call resulted in a bet for a lunch...   I don't gamble, but I have zero doubt that the Oil Slicks will not make it through the next round...   Aside from being outclassed and outplayed, they will not get the same kid of favoritism from the zebras next series...   It will be a good lunch, and I will no doubt have some fun chuckling about Edmonchuk's demise to him while I enjoy my free lunch...

 

Heard this one on the radio this morning, and now it's stuck in my head...   and it's quite appropriate for my mood today...

 

 

[sak22]

4 hours ago, robrob74 said:

could it be that it’s just hard to win in the league and there are a lot of good players that have to lose? It’s the fight I’m more interested in. If they’re clawing then they’re gamers. I didn’t see that from our best players enough. They were quiet for too many games. 
 

to say they’re young and have no experience is wrong. They played Vancouver. They played Colorado, they played Dallas. For some of the core that is 5 playoff series.
 

You said it yourself, every player is different. I think some have it and some don’t. Now, when we look at those greats that took awhile to win, were they no-shows until then? Did they actually underperform? 

There are 2 players who played in the Vancouver series that played in this playoffs, can't call that a learning experience for the team when 90% of the roster has changed, even Anaheim in '17 they only added Tkachuk to the mix.  Even between this series and Colorado there are only 5 forwards and 2 defensemen (not counting Stone because he didn't play the Colorado series), and 0 goalies.  Tampa Bay by comparison also lost in the first round that year in a series they actually underperformed (outscored 19-8), they have 5 defensemen from that roster still on the team this year, and 6 forwards (essentially their entire top 6) same goalie and same coach.  2019 NHL Eastern First Round: CBJ vs. TBL | Hockey-Reference.com look up the stats and they are pretty ugly for a lot of the guys leading that team now, the depth additions got a lot of credit, but the stars have stepped their game up after the past failures. 

 

Maybe this group will never win, but I don't think constant roster turnover is the answer either I don't see them being in the position to make a big splash and have never believed in the change for the sake of change. Our priority this offseason is player retention.  The upgrades over Tkachuk and Hanifin aren't out there for us, so hope they can continue to grow.

[travel_dude]

14 minutes ago, Carty said:

🙁<------  Carty today....   and I'll probably be rattled about this one for a while yet...   

 

Losing is one thing, having braindead refs affect the outcome of a series including a key game is another...

 

One of the worst parts is listening to Coiler fans gloat...   A good old friend of mine included...   He called me up after the game, and the call resulted in a bet for a lunch...   I don't gamble, but I have zero doubt that the Oil Slicks will not make it through the next round...   Aside from being outclassed and outplayed, they will not get the same kid of favoritism from the zebras next series...   It will be a good lunch, and I will no doubt have some fun chuckling about Edmonchuk's demise to him while I enjoy my free lunch...

 

Heard this one on the radio this morning, and now it's stuck in my head...   and it's quite appropriate for my mood today...

 

I am okay losing this game to bad play, but not to bad calls.

We had enough bad calls over the 5 games for this to be the cherry.

What makes this so much worse is having to put up with the constant barrage of "best....." and how this was so easily kicking it's not close.  SN was all over it from retired hockey players that have not played since the rule changed.  They were already moving past this series to talk about Nate vs Connor.  And yet, they seldom talk about the quality of calls through the series.  This was just another game of it.  

 

SN wants to say the name over and over again.  They want him awarded the Conn Smythe now.  The Oilers best run to date was one win less.  Anaheim with the comeback and gloved puck.  Somehow this is different in their minds because the visual is skate touching the puck.  No understanding of how the rule has been called all year, nor even an understanding of what the rule says.  Only people like Button and Friedman seem to understand the subtle differences.  

 

We are likely to see some change out of this.  Much like the COL goal that changed the off-side on a goal rule, this will change to remove doubt.  Or at least similar change from the last version of the rule.

 

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I don't think we ever played this year to that kind of speed.  Any time we tried against this team in particular, was a barn burner.  You don't win with speed alone and you don't lose by being a slower team.  What was it we won?  55 games?  What we have been good at is quick strike.  Scoring first, scoring 2 in a row.  We did that in Game 1 and 5, but we sure didn't do anything after we get the strike.  It's happened this year in other games.  But nowhere like this. 

 

Something had to be off with Marky.  The final BOA regular season game was a B2B, so I won't use that.  He looked different between game 7 and game 1.  I don't know if he was fighting an injury there or what.  He didn't face a ton in the OT against Dallas, so there may have been something in game 1 of BOA.  Maybe someone fell on his glove hand?  Somebody pointed that out in the GDT thread, so it's very possible.  3 goals to the glove side after that?  Too coincidental.     

we did it in game 2 too. We got up 2-0’quick and early and Had Smith questioning himself.

[travel_dude]

Here's a funny tidbit.

Zadorov fractured three ribs in the Dallas series.

I think you may remember the incident that most likely caused it.

Rush down the ice, and a Dallas player trips him.

The refs don't call it.

Even the nnouncers thought he stepped on the puck.

He went chest first into the goal post.

 

Glad he played through it without letting it out that he had rib issues.

He managed to make big hits in spite of that.

Man some of these guys play through a lot of pain.

I know there is not much you can do with ribs, but has to have been hurting.

[travel_dude]

50 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

we did it in game 2 too. We got up 2-0’quick and early and Had Smith questioning himself.

 

Yeah, I forgot to mention that.  

The problem with this series was we never got past the 2 goal lead more than once.

Game 2 was 2-1.  Then 3-1.

Game 5 was 2-0, then 2-1, then 2-2, then 2-3, then 3-3, then 4-3, then 4-4.

 

I blame some of it on momentum shifts.

Get a lead, send out the 4th line.

They get momentum and crawl back in.

We just kept doing the same thing.

Blame Marky for sure, but they certainly allowed the momentum shifts.

I don't feel it was really letting up.

Not the same thing as before this season.

 

Dallas didn't have the stamina to sustain a multi goal lead by us.

And the series was tighly called and tighly played. 

 

[The_People1]

16 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

Here's a funny tidbit.

Zadorov fractured three ribs in the Dallas series.

I think you may remember the incident that most likely caused it.

Rush down the ice, and a Dallas player trips him.

The refs don't call it.

Even the nnouncers thought he stepped on the puck.

He went chest first into the goal post.

 

Glad he played through it without letting it out that he had rib issues.

He managed to make big hits in spite of that.

Man some of these guys play through a lot of pain.

I know there is not much you can do with ribs, but has to have been hurting.

 

Zadorov was good for us.  I hope we can find a way to bring him back.

[phoenix66]

18 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I don't think we ever played this year to that kind of speed.  Any time we tried against this team in particular, was a barn burner.  You don't win with speed alone and you don't lose by being a slower team.  What was it we won?  55 games?  What we have been good at is quick strike.  Scoring first, scoring 2 in a row.  We did that in Game 1 and 5, but we sure didn't do anything after we get the strike.  It's happened this year in other games.  But nowhere like this. 

 

Something had to be off with Marky.  The final BOA regular season game was a B2B, so I won't use that.  He looked different between game 7 and game 1.  I don't know if he was fighting an injury there or what.  He didn't face a ton in the OT against Dallas, so there may have been something in game 1 of BOA.  Maybe someone fell on his glove hand?  Somebody pointed that out in the GDT thread, so it's very possible.  3 goals to the glove side after that?  Too coincidental.     

In hindsight .. we lost this series in game one.

We dominated to start , then let them back in the game .

If we close out that game as a blowout it sends Edmonton reeling. Maybe they change goalies , but we'd have been in their heads .

 

As it was they were in ours .. we jumped out early in game 2, and as soon as they scored a goal we mentally crumbled . Started playing their game again..  that was a pattern the rest of the series . 

Even game 5 looked like 2 different games .. we played our game ..they scored and suddenly it was on again..

 

The ones who cracked , were the inexperienced ones ..the kyllingtons, the hanifins , .. they will be better 

 

I'm not on the "Markstrom sucked" train.. he played well.. he just didn't play great.. I've said it before , every goalie has a weakness ..an Achilles heel.. history shows Edmonton is Markstroms .. I suspect the goalie coaches will address this ..last 2 games he looked better .last game he was deeper in his net and his glove was fine .. they just should have scouted it and addressed it earlier 

If your Goalie needs to steal you that game , the issues are in front of him .. 

This was going to be a higher scoring series than Dallas . A lower gas and sv% was going to happen . We limited their shots for the most part.. but they scored on high danger ones 

[The_People1]

6 hours ago, phoenix66 said:

In hindsight .. we lost this series in game one.

We dominated to start , then let them back in the game .

If we close out that game as a blowout it sends Edmonton reeling. Maybe they change goalies , but we'd have been in their heads .

 

As it was they were in ours .. we jumped out early in game 2, and as soon as they scored a goal we mentally crumbled . Started playing their game again..  that was a pattern the rest of the series . 

Even game 5 looked like 2 different games .. we played our game ..they scored and suddenly it was on again..

 

The ones who cracked , were the inexperienced ones ..the kyllingtons, the hanifins , .. they will be better 

 

I'm not on the "Markstrom sucked" train.. he played well.. he just didn't play great.. I've said it before , every goalie has a weakness ..an Achilles heel.. history shows Edmonton is Markstroms .. I suspect the goalie coaches will address this ..last 2 games he looked better .last game he was deeper in his net and his glove was fine .. they just should have scouted it and addressed it earlier 

If your Goalie needs to steal you that game , the issues are in front of him .. 

This was going to be a higher scoring series than Dallas . A lower gas and sv% was going to happen . We limited their shots for the most part.. but they scored on high danger ones 

 

I think it's fair to say it wasn't just Markstrom but we do have to say Markstrom sucked.  4.6GAA and like .850 SV%... Not all his fault but he didn't help.  He we good for one period per game.  Just brutal.

[flames for life]

20 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I think it's fair to say it wasn't just Markstrom but we do have to say Markstrom sucked.  4.6GAA and like .850 SV%... Not all his fault but he didn't help.  He we good for one period per game.  Just brutal.

It’s fair to say Markstrom was not his best, but let’s be honest, it was a team breakdown.  Forwards did not play “200” ft. hockey, defence became ineffective and intimidated by Oiler speed, and the goalie became could not feed off the team’s confidence and aggression….because there was none.  The closest to Calgary team hockey they even showed was not until 1st period of game 5.  No way that’s enough!

[zima]

It boils down to the fact we lost we let our nemesis beat us can't get any more embarrassing than that Marks did not play playoff hockey at all and smith did. I doubt  Oilslicks will get past Col. I guess the good news is the Flames made a little bit of cash and hopefully they use it to pay JH what he is worth and to me it should be in the 9mill rang. hopefully for 5 yrs or more maybe they will let him retire here but doubtful. 

[The_People1]

7 hours ago, flames for life said:

It’s fair to say Markstrom was not his best, but let’s be honest, it was a team breakdown.  Forwards did not play “200” ft. hockey, defence became ineffective and intimidated by Oiler speed, and the goalie became could not feed off the team’s confidence and aggression….because there was none.  The closest to Calgary team hockey they even showed was not until 1st period of game 5.  No way that’s enough!

 

It was a team breakdown for sure and not sure if it was the chicken or the egg but the goaltending wasn't good first game and then the team struggled to score from game 2 onward trying to compensate defensively and failing because McDavid was too dominating.  It snow balled from there.  We even got big saves here and there but the forwards couldn't feed off it.  Our D struggled big time without Tanev.  When D struggles, goaltending gets nervous and our Forwards have to be extra mindful defensively.  We couldn't play our kind of Sutter hockey that got us this far.

[travel_dude]

14 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

It was a team breakdown for sure and not sure if it was the chicken or the egg but the goaltending wasn't good first game and then the team struggled to score from game 2 onward trying to compensate defensively and failing because McDavid was too dominating.  It snow balled from there.  We even got big saves here and there but the forwards couldn't feed off it.  Our D struggled big time without Tanev.  When D struggles, goaltending gets nervous and our Forwards have to be extra mindful defensively.  We couldn't play our kind of Sutter hockey that got us this far.

 

The last line sums it up.  What caused that is a guess.  Game 1 was a blowout with special teams turning it into a game.  Not sure what the refs were seeing, but it was no better or worse than a regular season game.  It was called like we were using IIHF rules.  Game 2 was even worse and so one sided it was not even funny.  Call either game like a regular season game at worst, and it's a 2-0 Flames lead.  Call it like a plyoff game of old, and it's a 2-0 stomping.

 

It doesn't matter what the goalie was like overall, since the game came off the rails from the first penalty called.  As soon as the Flames get their game going, the refs decide to even the play.  We had refs that by results call less penalties and somehow they went nuts.  Whether this was league determined that they want skill guys to get more calls for them or the refs using game management, it doesn't matter.  It was too blatant.  Open the ice up with odd man or 4 aside.  Having Tanev gone for 3 set the D back into a confused state.  

[The_People1]

21 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

The last line sums it up.  What caused that is a guess.  Game 1 was a blowout with special teams turning it into a game.  Not sure what the refs were seeing, but it was no better or worse than a regular season game.  It was called like we were using IIHF rules.  Game 2 was even worse and so one sided it was not even funny.  Call either game like a regular season game at worst, and it's a 2-0 Flames lead.  Call it like a plyoff game of old, and it's a 2-0 stomping.

 

It doesn't matter what the goalie was like overall, since the game came off the rails from the first penalty called.  As soon as the Flames get their game going, the refs decide to even the play.  We had refs that by results call less penalties and somehow they went nuts.  Whether this was league determined that they want skill guys to get more calls for them or the refs using game management, it doesn't matter.  It was too blatant.  Open the ice up with odd man or 4 aside.  Having Tanev gone for 3 set the D back into a confused state.  

 

Ya and yet despite all this, like Sutter said in the post game interview, we had too many missed opportunities.  We still managed to generate enough chances to win every game but couldn't finish.  Shot wide.  Shot over the net.  Rushed shots.  Passed away a good shooting opportunity.  The Oilers weren't even that good but we beat ourselves half the time.

[travel_dude]

28 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya and yet despite all this, like Sutter said in the post game interview, we had too many missed opportunities.  We still managed to generate enough chances to win every game but couldn't finish.  Shot wide.  Shot over the net.  Rushed shots.  Passed away a good shooting opportunity.  The Oilers weren't even that good but we beat ourselves half the time.

 

No doubt game 1 was the turning point.  Everything that happened afterwards started in this game.  Can't play your A game when the refs decide that is not fair to the other team.  So, we start playing the game allowed and started doing things that we are not built for.  Where was Tkachuk after game 1?  We missed a lot of chances, but those were from playing something we never trained for.

[The_People1]

6 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

No doubt game 1 was the turning point.  Everything that happened afterwards started in this game.  Can't play your A game when the refs decide that is not fair to the other team.  So, we start playing the game allowed and started doing things that we are not built for.  Where was Tkachuk after game 1?  We missed a lot of chances, but those were from playing something we never trained for.

 

Ya Game 1... Sometimes when you play bad and win, that's the worst thing that can happen.  You let bad habits set in thinking it's good enough.

[robrob74]

On 5/28/2022 at 2:25 PM, flames for life said:

It’s fair to say Markstrom was not his best, but let’s be honest, it was a team breakdown.  Forwards did not play “200” ft. hockey, defence became ineffective and intimidated by Oiler speed, and the goalie became could not feed off the team’s confidence and aggression….because there was none.  The closest to Calgary team hockey they even showed was not until 1st period of game 5.  No way that’s enough!

 

Well, in the first two games Markstrom wasn't able to make routine saves when we were dominating. Those goals gave them confidence. Any other goalie would make those stops. Markstrom is either hurt, or got caught up in the pressures of round 2. I think it was Game 2 when the situation changed. We were up 2-0, and they tied it going into the 2nd and it was a game where they had nothing until then. But I agree, game 1 might have showed that they could come back at any point when down. 

 

I think that's when Sutter needed to settle the troops, and get them to tighten up. It was like game 5, we were in control, but broke the system and allowed them to play to theirs. We needed to slow the game down. McDavid didn't have any points until OT that game. 

 

There was a huge need to settle into our game, and we only did that for around 3 periods of the whole series. That is 3 out of 16 periods.

[robrob74]

2 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya Game 1... Sometimes when you play bad and win, that's the worst thing that can happen.  You let bad habits set in thinking it's good enough.

 

Fans were calling into OT and were saying that it's bad news to let those bad habits sink in and that our structure was gone. The media guys were berating the fans for having concerns about it. I get that it's something where you should be happy to win a 9-6 game, but that game wasn't pretty. Nor do I think it should be an example of how the NHL plays hockey. And if that's what the NHL wants, I don't want any part of it. It was fun to score (sure), but I did not enjoy the rest of it. It was more akin to beer league than NHL Hockey. 

 

I guess if they structure was there, a 9-6 game would be fine. But to say that scoring means exciting hockey, I on the other hand like a good 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, or 3-2 or 4-3 game. I think those games can be exciting to watch. I don't think it always means that it is a Dallas Vs Calgary series. It means both teams are trying to win and are good at their systems and working their Hash Rate off to not let the other team score, and goalies making great saves.

[Thebrewcrew]

11 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Fans were calling into OT and were saying that it's bad news to let those bad habits sink in and that our structure was gone. The media guys were berating the fans for having concerns about it. I get that it's something where you should be happy to win a 9-6 game, but that game wasn't pretty. Nor do I think it should be an example of how the NHL plays hockey. And if that's what the NHL wants, I don't want any part of it. It was fun to score (sure), but I did not enjoy the rest of it. It was more akin to beer league than NHL Hockey. 

 

I guess if they structure was there, a 9-6 game would be fine. But to say that scoring means exciting hockey, I on the other hand like a good 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, or 3-2 or 4-3 game. I think those games can be exciting to watch. I don't think it always means that it is a Dallas Vs Calgary series. It means both teams are trying to win and are good at their systems and working their Hash Rate off to not let the other team score, and goalies making great saves.

I do find it funny that the 960 media guys completely shrugged off game 1.

 

A win is better than the alternative, but I had big, big concerns after game 1. Blowing a 4 goal lead should not be shrugged off. It gave the Oilers belief that they can comeback at any point and score at will. And they did

[sak22]

7 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Fans were calling into OT and were saying that it's bad news to let those bad habits sink in and that our structure was gone. The media guys were berating the fans for having concerns about it. I get that it's something where you should be happy to win a 9-6 game, but that game wasn't pretty. Nor do I think it should be an example of how the NHL plays hockey. And if that's what the NHL wants, I don't want any part of it. It was fun to score (sure), but I did not enjoy the rest of it. It was more akin to beer league than NHL Hockey. 

 

I guess if they structure was there, a 9-6 game would be fine. But to say that scoring means exciting hockey, I on the other hand like a good 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, or 3-2 or 4-3 game. I think those games can be exciting to watch. I don't think it always means that it is a Dallas Vs Calgary series. It means both teams are trying to win and are good at their systems and working their Hash Rate off to not let the other team score, and goalies making great saves.

Edmonton didn't always win pretty down the stretch, but I find the mentality between the two teams quite different.  Edmonton blows a 5-1 lead late in the year in against St. Louis and wins 6-5 in OT, we make fun of them and they have the mindset of "who cares, 2 points is 2 points", personally I think thats the way to go, as I don't think a never satisfied approach is healthy.  As much as you think we only took the positives of game 1, they did the same with game 4 which was a blown 3 goal lead with one of the worst goals allowed possible.  We always want to win pretty or dominant but the win in general are all that matters, if you look at the last 3 times the finals have gone the distance the worst team won, and generally it came down to Binnington>Rask, Thomas>Luongo, and Fleury>Osgood.  I don't think game 1 was a defining moment, there were a lot of momentum shifts throughout the series besides game 3, 4 times there is a tie game in the 3rd and 3 times the Oilers get the next one

[The_People1]

21 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

I do find it funny that the 960 media guys completely shrugged off game 1.

 

A win is better than the alternative, but I had big, big concerns after game 1. Blowing a 4 goal lead should not be shrugged off. It gave the Oilers belief that they can comeback at any point and score at will. And they did

 

35 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Fans were calling into OT and were saying that it's bad news to let those bad habits sink in and that our structure was gone. The media guys were berating the fans for having concerns about it. I get that it's something where you should be happy to win a 9-6 game, but that game wasn't pretty. Nor do I think it should be an example of how the NHL plays hockey. And if that's what the NHL wants, I don't want any part of it. It was fun to score (sure), but I did not enjoy the rest of it. It was more akin to beer league than NHL Hockey. 

 

I guess if they structure was there, a 9-6 game would be fine. But to say that scoring means exciting hockey, I on the other hand like a good 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, or 3-2 or 4-3 game. I think those games can be exciting to watch. I don't think it always means that it is a Dallas Vs Calgary series. It means both teams are trying to win and are good at their systems and working their Hash Rate off to not let the other team score, and goalies making great saves.

 

Ya I mean if you can play average hockey and still "blow out" the other team, that creates a false sense of awesomeness.   Game 2, 3, and 4 hit so fast, the Flames didn't have time to mentally regroup.  The psychology of being able to shoot from anywhere and score didn't create the drive for the Flames to work hard.

[travel_dude]

33 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Edmonton didn't always win pretty down the stretch, but I find the mentality between the two teams quite different.  Edmonton blows a 5-1 lead late in the year in against St. Louis and wins 6-5 in OT, we make fun of them and they have the mindset of "who cares, 2 points is 2 points", personally I think thats the way to go, as I don't think a never satisfied approach is healthy.  As much as you think we only took the positives of game 1, they did the same with game 4 which was a blown 3 goal lead with one of the worst goals allowed possible.  We always want to win pretty or dominant but the win in general are all that matters, if you look at the last 3 times the finals have gone the distance the worst team won, and generally it came down to Binnington>Rask, Thomas>Luongo, and Fleury>Osgood.  I don't think game 1 was a defining moment, there were a lot of momentum shifts throughout the series besides game 3, 4 times there is a tie game in the 3rd and 3 times the Oilers get the next one

 

That game was Binnington's worst game.  I watched it.  Average goaltending and it's a blowout for the Blues.

It's not winning a game by buckling down, it was a game they didn't belong in.  Did the Oilers play better than the Flames in this series?  They took advantage of the things they were handed and we didn't.  Game 1 was just the start of the nonsense.