Col/Cgy Post-Game - A Negative Look at a Positive Result
OK, we know we're supposed to drown our sorrows after a loss by tossing a pint or two and composing haiku upon haiku in the post-game comments. It's easy to figure out how to react. But do we know how we're supposed to celebrate after a win? A win that looked like that? Sure, after the Ottawa game I noted that I finally found out what it felt like to be cheering for the Avs. But I didn't mean I wanted to feel like that after every game. Hell, we managed to out-Colorado Colorado tonight, which is no mean feat. I want to keep feeling superior to Avs fans for having to watch that hockey all the time, but the Flames are starting to play that way all the time too. And, by the way, don't let tonight's result fool you, the Avs are going to the playoffs and the Flames aren't. Not if the next three weeks look like this game.
Why am I so down after a win? I really don't know. Let's analyze a bit and see if I can feel better after that.
1) Calgary has proven (at least to me) that they have one of the weaker top lines in the league. Is that harsh? I mean, wasn't it last week that Jarome Iginla, Rene Bourque and Matt Stajan scored a boatload of goals? And two more tonight? Sure, but they are underwater every damn game. I find myself pleasantly surprised when they score and cursing them constantly for not getting the puck out of their zone. Stajan is not a top line center, at all, and Iginla is a scorer and a liability at the same time. You know it's true. The Flames roster is built with hope that the top line holds their own against the other team's best - it's their depth that will win for them, right? - and I don't think they even do that regularly. Granted, tonight, they started in their own end a lot, but it isn't their numbers that bother me. It was that they never moved the puck up ice, they ended up stuck in their own end far too much. (OK, I guess it is the numbers - look at those Corsi).
I don't feel better yet...let's talk second line.
2) What did Daymond Langkow do to piss off Brent Sutter? I think he is nails, the hardest worker out there, defensively conscious and still an offensive threat. But Ales Kotalik? And Niklas Hagman? Langkow doesn't have a chance carrying both of those guys all night. Does Kotalik think that firing a puck back to the point along the boards when the other team has a guy along the boards between he and the defenceman is going to work? Any chance he might stop thinking that after a third time having it tipped by the D-man down the ice (and causing danger at the other end)? Kotalik defines a zero-sum player, but not because he balances a lot of chances for with a lot of chances against. It's because he may as well not be on the ice at all - he has absolutely no impact. And Langkow's talents are being wasted on a line with him. Quite frankly, Hagman has been no better since joining the Flames, but I don't have anymore energy to waste on the second line.
As an aside, who would have predicted that Jamal Mayers was the second best player we got for Dion Phaneuf. And yet, I'm still glad Phaneuf is gone - I never realized until now how great my dislike for him had grown.
3) Finally, happy thoughts! David Moss had a great game tonight. He was a beast on the penalty kill and all over the offensive boards. This has been far too rare for the Mosster, but it was welcome tonight. He did come close to scoring a couple of times, which has also been rare. I'm not sure how he scored 20 last year, I think that's his absolute peak. But if he played like tonight all the time, he's still a valuable 3rd liner. That whole line was solid, winning their battles on the night pretty decisively. Nigel Dawes even used the Eric Nystrom "look skyward for answers after missing a glorious scoring chance" move, which was great because, against all odds, we didn't get the look from Nystrom himself...
4) ...Even when he couldn't score on the breakaway. And that's because he already scored a goal earlier, and Eric Nystrom is well aware that he can't look to blame the gods on a night where he's already scored. Water to wine is one thing, but Nystrom scoring twice is too much for any deity (well, unless he's playing Montreal or Vancouver, because even God hates the Habs and the Canucks!). Again, though, the fourth line did their job. Sutter stuck them out against the top Colorado line to start the 2nd period for reasons clear only to him, and that shift combined with one or two others against top competition left them on the negative side of the numbers. But they also forechecked very well (the best on the team tonight, according to Ray Ferraro, and I like Ray so I'll pass that along with no further comment).
I know the Flames won the scoring chance battle, and dominated parts of the game, and were owed in spades by the hockey gods for the earlier games against the Avs. In retrospect, I'm guess I'm not really happy after that win because I realize that with this roster, the Flames are consistently going to lose battles with the top guys (yes, Bourque got two tonight, but they were SH and PP) and win battles with the lower guys, and that doesn't lead to a lot of goals or excitement. And, as we're all too aware, the Avs have Matt Duchene and Peter Mueller and Ryan O'Reilly, who are only going to get better. And the Flames have Kotalik, Hagman, Stajan (not to mention Staios - he looked awful tonight, to my eye - and Sarich, and even Iggy and Langkow) who are only going to get worse. I don't want to keep thinking about that, I really don't, but the Flames aren't going to win eight or nine more games this year playing like this and it's hard not to see doom around the corner.
Sorry for the downer. Haiku, anyone?
Actually, I have one to finish with:
Tucker in the crease
Long before puck knocked in net
Why was that a goal?
1 recs |
38 comments
|
Comments
Stajan was frustrating to watch all night, especially that penalty he took in the offensive zone. Although that probably could have been called a trip and a dive, IMO. I think he turned the puck over a few times in his own zone as well.
I’m kinda bummed that Backlund didn’t get to play on his b-day, but I won’t complain too much since we got the win anyways.
If GlenX is out, then there is no reason whatsoever for Mickis to keep sitting.
The 4th Line Blog
Go Flames Go
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 17, 2010 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Who would you take out of the lineup to put in Backlund? I know it’s flashy and all to have a KID in the action but he needs to be sheltered (whereas someone like Conroy does not).
^^
That’s who.
The 4th Line Blog
Go Flames Go
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 17, 2010 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot.
The 4th Line Blog
Go Flames Go
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 18, 2010 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions
I missed this whole game
But caught students drunk at dance
Sounds like game was worse
Which is hard to believe, since my night involved vomit and paramedics (although, thankfully, only peripherally!).
The game was nerve-wracking, at least in the last 10 minutes or so. Overall, though, it was good. Plus, we did win, so…
The 4th Line Blog
Go Flames Go
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 17, 2010 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions
So was anyone else absolutely certain that we’d win 3-2 when we managed to pot the 3rd one?
by Avalain on Mar 18, 2010 6:38 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
If it makes you guys feel better, no one, absolutely no one, in the Pepsi center had any clue that the Avs first goal would be a goal. We were all shocked as hell when it was called one. (This is aided by the Avs refusal to play any replays of anything that could possibly be controversial most of the time)
FWIW I realize that the Avs had one of their better games statistically against the Flames last night, but the whole game was just one of the most unsatisfying games I’ve been to all season. The quality of play on both sides was pretty poor tonight.
USA-Canada this wasn’t.
Good win for you guys.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Mar 18, 2010 6:48 AM PDT reply actions
The TSN broadcast didn’t pick up that there was a goal until about a minute after the play either.
FWIW, league policy dictates that plays under review should not be shown on the replay screens until after the review is complete. Something about not liking how fans cheer or boo or get involved in the game or something…
I was at at the Bruins game when the league made that rule
It was this season. The Bruins “scored”. It was not under review until the replay and Carey Price freaked out because the net was up in the air. Without the replay on the jumbotron the refs would have dropped the puck. The Bruins sent a press release to the season ticket holders saying the league now disallows replays of goals of that sort.
Avalanche 2009-2010: Ostensibly, the worst team in the league. Realistically, more points than the Flames and Wings. But hey, your Corsi number is better.
Ahh
Didn’t realize there was any rule to it at all. The Avs have had a long storied history of keeping their fans in the dark on replays of anything that could be controversial, so I naturally assumed this was an in house policy.
In retrospect I’m surprised they replayed the Galiardi Boarding penalty, or the Durno goaltender interference one to be perfectly honest.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Mar 18, 2010 7:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Could be worse, I suppose. Teams like Ottawa practically avoid showing replays of anything their opposition does.
In fairness to Ottawa, they play Toronto a lot.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Mar 18, 2010 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Ottawa games are BRUTAL for that
Living here means I can get tix a lot due to fairweather fanbase, but the downside is a sub-standard arena environment and organization.
in europe they don’t show ever replays in football (soccer) because of the liklihood of rioting. i just don’t see the same threat in the nhl.
by walkinvisible on Mar 18, 2010 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Is it way too early to judge Toskala?
2-0 is an interesting number, he certainly seems to have decent offensive support for the win, but i don’t remember seein’ him giving up FAT rebound like McBackup did…
I don’t like this negativity.
But I’ll have some sensitivity .
We better play with some San Josetivity
THAT WAS TERRIBLE!
But it was my first shot.
GO FLAMES GO!!!
5,7,5. Although I commend you on the “San Josetivity” frankenword.
The 4th Line Blog
Go Flames Go
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 18, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Haiku’s need five sounds
Then seven syllables next
Followed by five more.
by Avalain on Mar 18, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is almost the haiku equivalant of BEDMAS.
The 4th Line Blog
Go Flames Go
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 18, 2010 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
there is nothing more awesome than a haiku detailing how to write a haiku.
by walkinvisible on Mar 18, 2010 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
i like our third line, old man conroy and mosster back to being corsi monsters and pocketdawes has some instant chemistry
my guess is that line’s done now. i figure with glenX out, the old man will usurp nystrom at centre on the 4th line, and mickis will draw in on the third.
by walkinvisible on Mar 18, 2010 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
i guess it’s possible that the fourth line is nystrom – backlund – mayers. but somehow i doubt it.
by walkinvisible on Mar 18, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, given Sutters’ penchant for deciding that certain players are “x line only” (ie Boyd top 9, Fleury top 2 or bust), I don’t think they would consider Backlund for the 4th line or they already would’ve had him on there at some point.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 18, 2010 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions

by 





















