Flames @ Red Wings Gamethread
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 3:35 PM PST
209 comments
Calgary Flames at Detroit Red Wings, Nov 27, 2009 4:00 PM PST
Mark your calenders - the Detroit Red Wings are currently outside the play-off picture. Will it last? I don't know, but it's been a long time since that club last had to look up at the post-season cut-off point. The problems infecting Detroit are numerous and, for once, they look rather vulnerable.
"Glimpses of grandeur now faced with defeat...
I've waited so long...I've waited so long..."
Stuff to watch for:
- Chris Osgood is dreadful again this season. I'm a subscriber of Detroit's "skrimp on goalies, invest in the skaters" strategy, but the key to following that path is to have at least average puck stopping. An excellent team can overcome terrible netminding for only so long.
- Despite their struggles, the Red Wings still have some players that are scary as hell. Zetterberg and Datsyuk are amongst the best two-way forwards in the league while Lidstrom can still get it done. As such, having Jamie Lundmark play with Iginla and Jokinen on the road against any one of these guys makes me nervous.
- Calgary has begun to eat into the ugly shot differential they were sporting at the end of Ocotober. They're still underwater (-3 and change), but that's pretty sizable improvement nonetheless.
Comments Commence...
0 recs |
209 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Since they're talking about Curtis on SNET:
Curtis Glencross:
+10 (plus/minus) leads team
+ a lot (scoring chances) leads team
+8.61/60 (corsi) second amongst forwards
Thank you, Kevin Lowe. Thank you.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 4:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I’m glad it broke the way it did, but I always wonder what really went down there. There were those rumours that he wanted north of 5 million over 3 years, and if that’s even close to the truth, I understand why the Oilers didn’t jump at it. Good for Calgary, at any rate.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s good stuff, there. Uh, woo Lundmark?
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 4:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Nice play by Jokinen. There, I said it.
And the Flames score in the first minute of the game again.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 4:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
So I guess the puck in the face wasn’t the problem for Sarich, if Loubardias is correct. Lower body.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 4:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah they said that on the radio today too.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 4:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That makes more sense, because guys can wear a shield for most injuries short of a busted jaw.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 4:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh Jaime Lundmark, why can’t you play every game like it’s against the Redwings. Nice pass by joker on that one.
by Parallex on Nov 27, 2009 4:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well, the Red Wings PP is clearly still excellent.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 4:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Gio got a break on that, because he nipped him in the schnozz.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 4:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
pay back for all the crap that Holmstrom gets away with all the time.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 4:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice move Bertuzzi… I mean, Holmstrom. That was a dumb penalty to take.
by Resolute on Nov 27, 2009 4:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Better than Regehr being on the PP I guess.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 4:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Count the number of times this game Simmer says “This is where the Flames have to….”
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 4:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I’m not drinking to that level, even in service of the blog. I have limits.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like that call, actually. The goalie has to have the right to his crease, but that also didn’t deserve a penalty.
by Resolute on Nov 27, 2009 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, I’ll take it, but that’s like the least amount of interference Detroit will commit tonight.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 4:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
that’s hilarious…. so. uh. corey perry can literally knock over and land on kipper and it’s a-ok, but one inch of cleary’s skateblade is in the blue paint and that’s no goal ? shades of glenX. ridiculous.
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 4:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d say more than an inch of Cleary’s skate was in the crease on that one. Similar issue as Glencross last year, but a little more egregious. That Perry call was bunk though.
And look, here’s a makeup call on Langkow!
by Resolute on Nov 27, 2009 4:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe >inch, but seriously ? that’s a goal in 2300 of the 2378 nhl games per year.
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
(or is there 2460. i’m not good at maths)
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 4:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or 1200 of the 1230. But I know what you’re getting at.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 4:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When he’s standing right in the crease like that, it shouldn’t be a goal in any of them.
That said, given how many times Kipper has been blatantly run over, that is a really odd play to get the make-up on.
by Resolute on Nov 27, 2009 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree there’s no way that should ever be a goal. Both feet in the crease. Doesn’t mean it’s ever called, but it should be.
by maimster on Nov 27, 2009 8:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Flames will want to escape this period at this point. They’re extremely fortunate to be ahead.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 4:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well that was bizarre. Good on Dawes for making the most of it though.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 4:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Pocketdawes is an excellent nickname.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 4:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I figured, since she loves Pocketdogs so much. I could make a joke about the phallic shape of hot dogs at this point, but I think I’ll restrain myself.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 4:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And yet, somehow you got a mention in any way. Quality work, sir.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 4:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
fyi: they are technically called pocketDAWgs, which is why “pocketdawes” is so genius…. (also cause he’s little).
:)
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
kent clearly no longer reads my blog…. ;)
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
C’mpn, Kent. He’s worthy of the Hall of Fame and the Olympics, don’t you know?
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 4:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That would be “C’mon, Kent” if I had a friggin’ clue.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 4:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Great last couple of shifts by the second line.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 4:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
15-22-25 is moving the puck north on every shift
by shep_ on Nov 27, 2009 4:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That’s about right. Lots of own zone draws for those guys that period.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Calgary outchanced 8-5 in that period, but I suspect the ES chances were about even.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 4:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
CGY -7. Moss/Langkow/Dawes were close to even, which isn’t bad in relative terms.
EV shots DET 10-5.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 4:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
“Mike Babcock has called out Todd Bertuzzi…”
Yeah. Good luck with that.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know why he would think that would work. Didn’t Mike Keenan show everyone that coddling the big guy was the way to get the most out of him?
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 5:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
haha, he doesnt work hard? bad giveaways? no defensive game? who would have thunk
by shep_ on Nov 27, 2009 5:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
So how do you watch these games in Sweden Shep? Satellite? Internet? Also…what time is it there?
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good start to this period from lines 2 and 3.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Adam Pardy and Aaron Johnson as a duo don’t really fill me with confidence.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 5:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Me neither.
Iginla et al. haven’t done anything since that first shift.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You have a two goal lead and the puck deep in your end. Attempting the stretch pass from behind your goal line doesn’t make a lick of sense.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
No. Boyd and the other forwards bailed Johnson out by getting the draw out of the zone.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 5:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
After a decent start, the ice is tilted hard towards the Flames end. At some point, Calgary’s gotta push back some.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I thought the last couple of shifts were a bit better, but the penalty isn’t going to help matters any.
by SarahM on Nov 27, 2009 5:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Umm…that’s not a penalty. It specifically stipulates in the rule book that the follow-through on a shot isn’t a high stick.
The officials tonight are totally incompetent. Again.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That penalty was awful on multiple levels. Follow through, Stuart with his head practically on the ice, two sticks interfering with Iggy as he shot…
by maimster on Nov 27, 2009 8:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that was a fire drill. It’s unreal the Flames are 2 goals ahead in this game.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
outshot 26-7. That’s great.
Of course, it helps that the Red Wings keep getting power plays.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
You should be more like Avalanche fans, Kent:
“Woohoo, we’re great. Whaddya mean getting out-shot by a million is bad?”
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 5:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Im guessing they’re beginning to come around on that point.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It usually does require losing for most people to get to that point, true.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 5:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There’s the Detroit officiating we all know and love. Jesus.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 5:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well, this period has becoming a farce. Just get out alive.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yikes. Looks like Langkow lost Datsyuk in coverage there.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Flames outchanced 10-4 in that period.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wow, 32-11….this is not good, thus far. I would be a little more sympathetic of the wings, if the calls that are obvious penalties on Detroit (ie interfernce on Regehr and the holding the sticks were called) …but no. So, I’m not.
However, we need a 10-5 shots for the Flames kinda period now, cause this is just silly.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 5:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Flames -20 (!!!!), -13 in the period.
EV shots 21-10 DET, 11-5 in the period.
I didn’t see the game on our Thanksgiving against the Hawks, but that period had to be analogous, minus the goals, of course.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 5:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I just started watching the game… ha sit really been that uneven ?
by tsukemonoki on Nov 27, 2009 5:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well, the only way to go is up then?
by tsukemonoki on Nov 27, 2009 5:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I really could drag out the annoying aspect of saying “see answer 1” again, but I’m actually not confident tonight the Flames have an “up” in them.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, they could lose is what I was getting at. At least they’re actually ahead right now.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I predict a much better 3rd period (ignore the time stamp on this comment)
by maimster on Nov 27, 2009 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Imagine if the Wings were healthy. Obviously tales of their death are grossly exaggerated.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That McGill interview was funny. “We should have plenty of energy for the offensive zone, because we spent that whole period in our own zone.”
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 5:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
haha.
One thing that strikes me when we play DET or CHI is how apparently slow the Flames are. That might be just an artifact of chasing the pusk around all night though.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it is really surprising isn’t it? We have fast players such as GlenX, but they never seem to get the puck support the Helm’s of the world are getting….then they run into a wall.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 5:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the speed thing is true, that’s a real problem isn’t it.
by tsukemonoki on Nov 27, 2009 5:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, come on Flames….. more than 7 shots this period.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 5:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
God. I am glad Osgood is sucking tonight.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 5:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not sure what Osgood is doing on that play.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 5:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Tough for any goalie to stop that, I think.
by maimster on Nov 27, 2009 8:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
HA! Bert is an idiot. I was about to rip Gio for being pushed around by the ‘big soft’
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Todd Bertuzzi, ladies and gentlemen. Thank the deity of your choice that he isn’t a Flame any more.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I like that Phaneuf goes to the net, but standing behind the net (4-on-4) is a bit much no?
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Bizarro Joker, with two consecutive good defensive plays.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
He may be getting better each game, but he is still remarkably impossible to predict. No consistency from shit to shift.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Whoops…..that should be shift to shift…..but maybe it’s more appropriate as it stands.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe by game 82, he’ll be consistent? [crosses fingers]
by tsukemonoki on Nov 27, 2009 6:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
is it still a “really good scoring chance” if bertuzzi’s involved ?
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
(i just spent 45 minutes in traffic driving what would normally take 10….fyi)
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Grey Cup traffic, wi? Lots of demented green folks?
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
nope. just snow. you know how it is… people forget.
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed. We haven’t had any snow yet this year, and it’ll be a cluster when it comes.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Snow? and when you’re not up in the mountains? What’s that like?
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It is. He always got one ridiculous backhand pass to work per game.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 6:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah. The Flames even got a 10 second PP!
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 6:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he was even looking sharp in Gretz’ office.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so yeah, as per the above: i came up with pocketdawes last week but because they’re technically “pocketdawgs” and because #15’s so little, it seemed kindof perfect.
i told one of my buddies that it was the best nickname of all time. he suggested king tut was better.
;)
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I dunno if defense has been a strong suit tonight, but it doesn’t look any worse than other pairings
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ok, nothing special, everyone was overmatched in the 2nd
by shep_ on Nov 27, 2009 6:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gio’s had a relatively good game, considering he’s seen a lot of Datsyuk. I mean the team had 2 terrible periods, so it’s all in context.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
“4 very important” pretty much covers it all, shep.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
clearly kippy’s not suffering from it….. ;) (so far)
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Sjostrom has a very bizarre skating style.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Flames are keeping them to the outside pretty well this period.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 6:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
On a night lacking Bourque in DET where the opposition got all of the PP’s, I guess it’s not too surprising.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 6:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, nice to escape with that win. Kipper played well and was lucky to boot. So were the Flames at the other end.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 6:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Kipper was good, and Detroit just can’t buy one right now. Boo-friggin-hoo.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was an impressive shutout. 40 shots against.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
well. let’s call a spade a spade… probably shouldn’t have been considered a shutout…. just sayin’.
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
cleary had both skates in the blue
notice that holmström is an expert on this, always tries to keep his feet right outside the blue
by shep_ on Nov 27, 2009 6:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well, i would like the nhl to call those all the time then. cause i’d say 85% of the time that’s a goal in this league….
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
talk to Glencross about it, he got his then, we got our’s now.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he actually DIDN’T get that goal. it was called back.
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s what I mean… he got his “bad-call” then, we got ours now. This was much more obvious to me anyway, there was contact and he had both feet in the crease. If the goalie is allowed to use ‘his crease’ to move about to save a shot, then Kipper couldn’t use all of it there.
With Glenny, he wasn’t even close as I remember.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i hear what you’re saying. and i’m pretty sure you can hear me when i say that that’s generally considered a goal —whether it should be or not. i’m suggesting that i’d LOVE it if the league got those ones right more often than not.
and technically tonight they got it right.
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
why’s that? last time I looked 0 goals against is a shutout. If you’re talking the disallowed goals…those are the right calls, that’s why the rules are there.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
of course it’s debateable, and so are the other 4-5 times he was run without Det being penalized. The best part is, noone will remember in ten days because they’ll only read sv% and shutouts and they’ll both be recorded.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i’ll remember. the same way i remembered a similar goal getting called back on glenX last year…. and guess what ? YOU REMEMBER TOO !!!!
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d forgotten all about GlenX until this discussion. But I submit, again, that was the correct call, NHL inconsistency be damned.
by maimster on Nov 27, 2009 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
old man conroy had a good game against detroits bottom six
by shep_ on Nov 27, 2009 6:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
go to bed, shep. you gotta get up in 4 hours.
;)
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The other bright spot: Calgary shut ’em down well in the third, although I think that 3rd goal really took the wind out of their sails.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 6:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
…and let’s not forget that olli scored.
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ah, you were in traffic. Yes, right under the crossbar on a rocket.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so… that’s a positive !!! his first real goal of the year !!! :)
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The goal against the Hawks in Calgary was legit, but I could understand if the rest of that game might have faded that memory.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i was actually unable to watch that game. thank christ…. ;)
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
no he got one against…..ummm… I forget, but a wrister from the high slot. his 3rd (1st) goal.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that was a fluke goal. shouldn’t have gone in. bounced weird.
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You guys are talking about two different goals. Lawrence is referring to the one I mentioned, and you’re talking about the fluke in Chicago against Niemi.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
nah, you;re thinking the other Chicago goal….against Niemi…. this was the high hard shot against Huet,
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ah. yes. two different ones. both against chicago, perhaps….. hence the confusion… ?
we’re still friends, right ?
:)
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Reading this chain was 20 seconds of my life I can’t have back!
by maimster on Nov 27, 2009 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Flames -26, so only -6 in that period. Sheesh.
EV shots DET 29-16, 8-6 DET in the third.
That third goal slowed the wave.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ouch. Based on the Corsi numbers and EV shots, did Calgary get lucky then?
by tsukemonoki on Nov 27, 2009 6:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Flames are pretty much living proof that corsi has no correlation to success.
by Resolute on Nov 27, 2009 8:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
…and what’s the deal with sarich ? it’s not the puck-in-the-face theory ?
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Lower body, according to Loubardias tonight, and Kent said that was reported on the radio this aft. as well.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
is he on the roadtrip ? or at home ?
i see johnson wasn’t too well-liked tonight by herr sutter 9:20 is not top 6 minutes.
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
….and i see gio got more mins than dion. interesting.
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
(nevermind. i forgot about all the PK time)
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He still had 1 extra minute. 21:03 to 20:01.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, but it’s not that interesting with 12 mins of PK time. i can’t get the event summary to open so i can only presume gio took alot of shifts on the PK
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
2:21 for Gio, 3:16 for Dion. Dion actually had 20:39 overall TOI, Gio 21:04
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
this is pretty much exactly opposite to what i would have expected. meh.
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 7:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s at home. No other word.
Aaron Johnson is a seventh defenceman, the end.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
funny, cause anton strålman sure looks like a top 4 blueliner for about the same price.
;)
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 6:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He might be better than your average 7th D-man ;-) I don’t think he’d be in the top 2 pairs on the Flames, but he’d be useful.
That move wasn’t worth the 200K they saved.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yes. i’m not suggesting he’d be a top 4 HERE but he’d sure look nice there next to pardy. ;)
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 7:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For the first time this year I will overlook the stats. The Flames played very smart getting the puck out when it mattered and got good goals early.
As a diehard fan this what I look for night in and night………………. well maybe not the getting outshot but still beautiful game by the Flames.
30 years of the NHL's Best Hockey, It got us through some tough times.
by CofRed on Nov 27, 2009 6:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ok, I’m outta here. Good game, on to Nashville? no Clb… shit. Later.
by LawrenceS on Nov 27, 2009 6:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Night, Lawrence. CBus tomorrow, indeed.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 27, 2009 6:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Scoring Chances are up. Flames well behind, with the real difference being all the DET PP’s.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 27, 2009 7:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not a great game, but a good 3rd and hard to overcome that many penalties. And Kipper looks like a completely different guy than last year, much more nimble on his feet and less panic. I like it. I’ll like it better if they run Columbus (or Nashville, if you prefer, lawrence) out of the rink tomorrow.
by maimster on Nov 27, 2009 8:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
i really do wonder if it was keenan. or marcoux. or if noodles is just truly the best effin’ goaltending coach in the universe. or what.
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 11:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Kipper just gave everyone who doubted him a giant middle finger tonight.
“I dare you to name someone else the starter, Kurri. I dare you.”
by Resolute on Nov 27, 2009 8:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
career ending injury enroute to a finland gold, perhaps ? sweeeet…..
by walkinvisible on Nov 27, 2009 11:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
After getting run over by Iginla, who shreds his knee in the process and is never the same?
by Resolute on Nov 28, 2009 8:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Boy, the Riders make the Grey Cup and suddenly you guys are coming up with all kind of apocalyptic scenarios!! Step away from the ledge!!!
by maimster on Nov 28, 2009 8:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Matchsticks and Gasoline
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Flames Schedule
Next 5 Games
@
Minnesota
|
Sun 03/21 | 12:00 PM PDT |
|
Anaheim
|
Tue 03/23 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
@
New York Islanders
|
Thu 03/25 | 4:00 PM PDT |
|
@
Boston
|
Sat 03/27 | 10:00 AM PDT |
|
@
Washington
|
Sun 03/28 | 12:00 PM PDT |
Last 5 Games
|
San Jose
|
Fri 03/19 | W 4 - 3 |
|
@
Colorado
|
Wed 03/17 | W 3 - 2 |
|
Detroit
|
Mon 03/15 | L 1 - 2 |
|
@
Vancouver
|
Sun 03/14 | L 1 - 3 |
|
Ottawa
|
Thu 03/11 | W 2 - 0 |
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Walk-on wizard: Shawn Hunwick lifts Michigan to NCAAs
- Video: 'History Will Be Made' campaign debuts with Lemieux, Orr
- Saturday's Three Stars: Wings beat clock again; Rinne blanks Jackets
- NHL.com ready to open the Vault for classic games online
- Friday's Three Stars: Dubnyk finally gets 'W'; Nash nets 2
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
