Flames vs. Red Wings Game Thread
by Robert Cleave on Mar 9, 2010 1:49 PM PST
253 comments
Calgary Flames at Detroit Red Wings, Mar 9, 2010 4:00 PM PST
The last time through Motown presented the sort of game that would have rightfully driven a Wings fan a bit nuts. They badly out-played the Flames for about 2 1/2 periods, before the 3-0 goal ended their push. On that night, the Flames chose Daymond Langkow to face Pavel Datsyuk, while leaving Jarome Iginla to battle Henrik Zetterberg et al. That sort of match-up may well occur again tonight, with the Russian center having the superior wingers in Franzen and Holmstrom. If Langkow gets a shut down role, that just leaves Zetterberg against Bourque-Stajan-Iginla. Nice. Bourque and Iginla looked pretty solid in St. Paul, so if Matt Stajan is going to survive this night not looking like a complete chump, his wingers will likely have to carry the mail.
Kent wrote his amicus brief on behalf of Langkow earlier today, and I suspect that as we go through the rest of the year, examining his performance by points scored will likely be an unsatisfying measure. He's very likely to be stuck playing the other team's skill players for the duration, and he'll have to do it from some lousy spots on the ice. He and Christopher Higgins look up to the task so far, but tonight they and erstwhile cohort Ales Kotalik will be put under the microscope. No matter which of the Flames' top lines matches with the top two Wings' lines, we'll get some answers about how much better suited Calgary is to play the better teams in the conference.
Craig Conroy had a tough afternoon in Minnesota shaking off the rust, and that can't last tonight. He'll very likely see a bit of Valteri Filppula this evening, so he David Moss and Niklas Hagman will need to be sharp. Filppula and ol' Sparklepants do occasionally leak shots against though, which could mean good things if Hagman can locate his shooting eye. Normally that would leave Curtis Glencross, Eric Nystrom and Jamal Mayers in a good place relative to match-ups, but the Wings will have Darren Helm and Patrick Eaves against them, leaving a tougher challenge than they've faced thus far. Like I said, this night is a proper exam.
The Flames' restructured backline was decent enough versus the Wild, with Giordano and Sarich getting a surprising ratio of D zone starts. Tonight does present some issues, and given the size of Holmstrom and Franzen, I wonder if Bouwmeester and Staios will draw that assignment. Ian White seems undersized for that sort of duty, and Zetterberg-Williams-Cleary aren't quite as physically dominant. Again, interesting stuff.
After a day to watch his buddy at work, Miikka Kiprusoff will return to the net. The last time these teams met, he was the difference maker, stopping 40 shots en route to a shut-out. He'll very likely need to be in that sort of form again, especially early on if Detroit unloads their standard first period blitz.
The Wings' season, as I mentioned up top, seems to be a reflection of some injury and roster challenges, but they've been a bit unlucky in the shooting percentage arena as well. Despite out-shooting their opposition, they've been out-scored 5 v 5. Shooting 7% will do that to a team, and that percentage rates only behind Boston league wide. One spot where the Red Wings have clearly taken a step back is in 5 v 5 shot prevention, going from 27.1 SA/60 last season to 29.6 this year. That has them on track to give up about 200 more shots for the season 5 v 5, so the fact that Jimmy Howard has been pretty solid this season hasn't given them much of a goals against boost. Again, injuries and a slight slide in play by Niklas Lidstrom are the likely culprits for the regression in shot suppression.
Detroit's mostly healthy now, though, and that's what makes this game such an intriguing contest. For all their problems earlier in the year, the Red Wings still might be the equal of any team in the West when they sport a full roster, and winning in Chicago Sunday while dropping a 5 spot on the Hawks isn't applesauce. As long as Mike Babcock keeps future Hall of Famer™ Chris Osgood stapled to the bench, they'll be a handful for any team, and that certainly goes for the Flames. Kiprusoff playing well and a night not spent in the box are the likely tickets to having a shot at winning this one. Detroit usually gets an early jump on teams at the Joe, and a few penalties normally just seem to add to the cascade effect. As I've mentioned, this is the type of contest that might well give us a proper feel for where this Flames' season is headed.
Lines from the Herald:
Bourque-Stajan-Iginla
Higgins-Langkow-Kotalik
Hagman-Conroy-Moss
Glencross-Nystrom-Mayers
From Helene St. James at the Freep:
Franzen-Datsyuk-Holmstrom
Cleary-Zetterberg-Williams
Miller-Filppula-Bertuzzi
Draper-Helm-Eaves
Game time is 5 MT on Sportsnet West.
0 recs |
253 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Wings 2, Flames 2. League declares it an official tie for the first and only time ever in post-lockout as the shootout goes to 50 rounds and the officials eventually just say “fuck it.”
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 9, 2010 3:05 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
rec’d
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 3:50 PM PST up reply actions
Any chance Toronto could loan us Jaime Lundmark back. For a tweener that guy sure was a Wing killer for us.
Anyways keys to the game IMO:
1: Crash the net, Goaltending is the Wings biggest weakness so expoit it.
2: Stay out of the box, I know it’s Joe Louis Arena and if you sneeze in the vicinity of a Wing you’ll get called for roughing but they have a good powerplay and the Flames have taken almost twice as many PIM’s. Can’t let them expoit that.
3: Stand right behind Bert, he’ll pass it right to you.
1. *was the Wings’ biggest weakness. I don’t know that they have a particular weakness at this point.
by SmellOfVictory on Mar 9, 2010 3:25 PM PST up reply actions
BTW Robert, it looks like Im going to miss the start of the game. If you could cover the scoring chances (even just for the first period) that would be great.
Done. I’ll email my stuff to you, and if you get settled at some point, let me know and I’ll let you take it from there.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 9, 2010 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
I would guess not.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
The line tonight is -190 Detroit which is absurdly in favor of them. IIRC this is higher than where the lines were set for the previous two DET-CGY games. I’m not sure why that is, Franzen is good but he’s not that big a difference maker is he?
Anyways, I think the bookies are overestimating but my money’s not on the line so take that with a grain of salt. Still, I have to think we have an advantage in nets and our forward corps have clearly improved from previous iterations. Phaneuf is gone which probably takes a bit from us but I have to think we could go 50/50 with these guys which means the line should only be around -130 Detroit.
Crazy. Anyways, go Flames.
i’m pretty sure the domebeers sentiment can be shortened to simply “furthermore….”
by walkinvisible on Mar 9, 2010 4:29 PM PST up reply actions
wow. there’s a shocker.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 4:27 PM PST up reply actions
That was a sarcastic comment, by the way.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 4:29 PM PST up reply actions
Blogger etiquette commands you to denote sarcasm with tildes.
by Rod Blogojevich on Mar 9, 2010 4:30 PM PST up reply actions
as was the one you cut and pasted from, above. :P
by walkinvisible on Mar 9, 2010 4:32 PM PST up reply actions
i actually think it means he’ll get more opportunity for offense. i’m not against it.
by walkinvisible on Mar 9, 2010 4:31 PM PST up reply actions
i can’t believe people are jumping all over langkow when kotalik is way more useless and not much cheaper.
Kotalik is younger. That gives him two breaks: can still develop, and his cap hit isn’t as much of a concern down the road. I disagree with both of them, because Kotalik sucks on toast.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 4:36 PM PST up reply actions
You think Ales Kotalik will ‘develop’ at age 31?
by Rod Blogojevich on Mar 9, 2010 4:37 PM PST up reply actions
Justin, that was the most intelligent remark i have ever heard
by Rod Blogojevich on Mar 9, 2010 4:38 PM PST up reply actions
God dammit there were supposed to be tildes in that comment ~~~~~
by Rod Blogojevich on Mar 9, 2010 4:38 PM PST up reply actions
I should send a notice to SB Nations tech support crew over this tilde fiasco
by Rod Blogojevich on Mar 9, 2010 4:40 PM PST up reply actions
Preview, dude.
~~~~~
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 4:40 PM PST up reply actions
Like I said, I disagree with both of them. I’m just saying the MSM will go those routes if they want to defend Kotalik over Lanks.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 4:39 PM PST up reply actions
i think once you get to be about 27 or 28 then “younger” doesn’t really matter anymore.
by walkinvisible on Mar 9, 2010 4:40 PM PST up reply actions
But 30/31 is younger then 34/35. That’s just the way the talking heads think.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 4:40 PM PST up reply actions
i dunno. not really. not even the bad ones.
by walkinvisible on Mar 9, 2010 4:41 PM PST up reply actions
I would not be surprised if someone took that route, that’s all.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 4:42 PM PST up reply actions
Azevedo you are thrashing in the quicksand here. Let’s just move on with these facts understood:
1. Kotalik would be rated like 21 in NHL 10 in the potential attribute
2. Some serious issues with the tilde situation
by Rod Blogojevich on Mar 9, 2010 4:44 PM PST up reply actions
Dude I am not saying I like Kotalik. I hate his salary, I hate the way he plays, and he is not going to get better.
I disagree with both of them, because Kotalik sucks on toast.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 4:45 PM PST up reply actions
~ He’s a heart and soul player. Does whatever he needs to to help the team win. ~
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 4:48 PM PST up reply actions
Oh no. Oh, god no.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 4:37 PM PST up reply actions
Back and forth, no clear advantage.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 4:42 PM PST up reply actions
You didn’t miss a chance. The last one I marked was before the DET PP at 6:15.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 9, 2010 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
i was actually surprised how composed calgary was. is it bad that i wrote “composted” ? no ? good.
i will not tell a lie: i prefer the current D to the D of two months ago (most notably, i like the change in #3s a LOT. i don’t think dion would have bothered to chase down z’berg ever).
by walkinvisible on Mar 9, 2010 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, Detroit had one weak link (Sparklepants) out there, and Sutter went right to Iggy’s line. Good plan, and they did get a bit of pressure out of it.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 9, 2010 4:46 PM PST up reply actions
It’s hard to have a negative IQ, but these guys accomplish it.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 4:49 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Rec’d second best comment of the day on this site
by M F on Mar 9, 2010 4:50 PM PST up reply actions
If this was deadspin, you’d have a gold star next to your name
by Rod Blogojevich on Mar 9, 2010 4:53 PM PST up reply actions
I think when you’ve been around forever, saying the same shit forever, you don’t even listed to what you’re saying and you don’t care. I remember reading Brophy when I was getting Hockey News in a newspaper version back in the ’80s. I thought he was decent then, a new viewpoint. But that was 20+ years ago.
Your standards might be changing as well, right? He might be no different than he was 20 years ago, but I’d guess you expect more from coverage these days.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 9, 2010 4:58 PM PST up reply actions
CGY -2. Top six bad, bottom six good.
EV shots 10-7 DET.
Chances 6-2 DET. DET got their chances early, but it was dead even the last half of the period.
even I think it’s creepy which obviously means its reallllly effin’ creepy.
by walkinvisible on Mar 9, 2010 6:41 PM PST up reply actions
I was sitting in stunned silence at that last Conroy turnover, Rod.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 9, 2010 5:14 PM PST up reply actions
Oui. Of all the moves the Flames didn’t make, a third line center is the one that might have helped them the most in the short term. When Boyd was around, they likely had four 4th line centers, including the kid and Nystrom.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 9, 2010 5:16 PM PST up reply actions
He was doing alright earlier this year (aside from bearing down on chances), but there have definitely been signs of decline.
this is what i was saying last game and everybody was jumpin down my throat.
ps: what the hell does that saying actually mean ?
by walkinvisible on Mar 9, 2010 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
Which will happen if you haven’t played in 45 days.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 5:17 PM PST up reply actions
Oh ok. I tend to not watch the games I just come for the gamethead
by Rod Blogojevich on Mar 9, 2010 5:17 PM PST up reply actions
Kipper should have had that one. And I like that there was no call for Lidstrom amputating Iggy on that break-away.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
It’s the Wings. Good luck getting the calls against them.
My feed is a bit poor, but was that deflected a bit? If it was, bad break, if it wasn’t, yeah, Kipper can’t let that by him.
It looked like it went right in. SNet didn’t show a decent replay.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 5:20 PM PST up reply actions
Well speak of the devil it’s Hagman stepping up in the penalty box
by Rod Blogojevich on Mar 9, 2010 5:27 PM PST up reply actions
That’s his only fucking job too. Trade him.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 5:28 PM PST up reply actions
Strong words Azevedo. Looks like you dont feel the same way about Toskala as you do for Kotalik
by Rod Blogojevich on Mar 9, 2010 5:29 PM PST up reply actions
Can I still blame Darryl? Not that it matters, Daz has made enough REAL errors that I don’t need to make stuff up.
Might as well pile it on.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 5:35 PM PST up reply actions
Whoever’s job it is to manage the bench needs to be fired. Too many too many men penalties this year.
And holy shit… I didn’t think Holmstrom was even capable of scoring a goal that didn’t require goaltender interference.
A result of a poor shift by the ‘energy’ line, it looked like Gio was going to go off and then realized there would be a free man and stayed on…and there you go.
Actually, I blame the Detroit bench – it looks like Toskala has to sit too far back to handle the door correctly!
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 5:35 PM PST up reply actions
I would be willing to bet not many people get the reference.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 5:38 PM PST up reply actions
Charlie Simmer (and/or his hair) just said it was Detroit’s skating ability that keeps them out of the box. Would you be disagreeing with the MSM? I mean, these guys get paid to spew this crap.
CGY +2, +4 in the period. Jarome and company are having a rough night.
EV shots are 20-16 DET 10-9 in the second. That PP is the ballgame, right now.
~ Yes. Being out of your crease makes you a better goalie. You fucking idiot. ~
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
In hindsight, a new line should have been reserved for them.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 5:41 PM PST up reply actions
Wow, I can see why there are complaints about Loubardias (?) all the time. I wandered away from the stream for 30 seconds, and I had no idea what was going on. Horrible play-by-play…
~ No Way! How has no one thought of that before? ~
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 6:05 PM PST up reply actions
PPs – Det 4, Cgy 0.
Not arguing the calls against us, but what the hell happened to game management?
yeah hiiiiigggggyYYY
i know i’m late to the party but i was pretty stoked (and still am).
by walkinvisible on Mar 9, 2010 6:52 PM PST up reply actions
The guy’s a champ. He was having fun with it on the bench after.
Go Flames Go
Goals? Where we're going, we don't need goals.
by Justin Azevedo on Mar 9, 2010 6:56 PM PST up reply actions
CGY +8, +6 in the third, and they were higher than that before the late stages. Very good, and the Conroy line was well in the black.
EV shots 27-24 CGY, so 15-4 in the third.
EV shots should read 11-4 in the period. Good at any rate.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 9, 2010 6:29 PM PST up reply actions
Notice Hank Zetterberg at all? Me neither.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 9, 2010 6:31 PM PST up reply actions
He was, particularly in the first two periods. Nice player to watch.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 9, 2010 6:34 PM PST up reply actions
Column A/Column B stuff, IMO, Colin. He didn’t seem to have much jump, his line mates aren’t the best, and Langkow-Higgins can suppress your offence with some good puck control.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 9, 2010 6:36 PM PST up reply actions
Cleary and Williams, I think. Bert was with Filppula.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 9, 2010 6:49 PM PST up reply actions
Yup, just checked the icetime. Cleary and Williams almost exclusively.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 9, 2010 6:52 PM PST up reply actions
i was in class, but . . . this was as big as it seems, right? especially the manner of the win?
"The hard... is what makes it great."
It almost seemed like they wore Detroit down a bit. That third period was one-way traffic in the good direction, so yeah, very positive result.
by Robert Cleave on Mar 9, 2010 7:43 PM PST up reply actions
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
Vancouver
|
Tue 09/21 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
@
Vancouver
|
Tue 09/21 | 7:00 PM PDT |
|
Tampa Bay
|
Sat 09/25 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
Phoenix
|
Tue 09/28 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
@
New York Islanders
|
Wed 09/29 | 5:00 PM PDT |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 04/10 | L 3 - 7 |
|
Minnesota
|
Thu 04/08 | SO - L 1 - 2 |
|
San Jose
|
Tue 04/06 | L 1 - 2 |
|
@
Chicago
|
Sun 04/04 | L 1 - 4 |
|
@
Colorado
|
Fri 04/02 | W 2 - 1 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- In which former NHL coach Ken Hitchcock foils a shoplifter
- Montreal's Price talks new 2-year contract, expectations post-Halak
- Donald Fehr aware of Kovalchuk drama, mum on everything else
- Puck Headlines: Savard's agent rants on Bettman; Halak in Montreal
- Boudreau, Crawford placed on the coaching hot seat
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.
