GDT: FLAMES (34-26-15) @ CANUCKS (34-34-6) | 8 p.m. MT | TV: Sportsnet | RADIO: Sportsnet 960 The FAN

super6646

Registered User
Apr 16, 2018
17,910
15,769
Calgary
Compare this:



...to this...



in order to see why this rebuttal doesn't work.

We just don’t agree and we never will. It’s always going to be something.

Demko made an out of worldly save that was a sure fire goal… then wasn’t. If the bar is to make all the easy saves markstrom (usually) does that.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,483
14,802
Victoria
The thing is, you look at the other end and Demko, I think we'd all agree, is playing terrifically well. And yet he's allowed 3 goals. How do those three goals happen if he's playing well? It's the same exact thing.
 

super6646

Registered User
Apr 16, 2018
17,910
15,769
Calgary
The thing is, you look at the other end and Demko, I think we'd all agree, is playing terrifically well. And yet he's allowed 3 goals. How do those three goals happen if he's playing well? It's the same exact thing.

He’s faced far more shots and some incredible chances too. He’s been the difference maker. Markstrom hasn’t. Why is that an unreasonable bar?
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,483
14,802
Victoria
He’s faced far more shots and some incredible chances too. He’s been the difference maker. Markstrom hasn’t
Exactly. Now let's say we take away all the extra shots. Does that mean that those goals that went in are more saveable? They go from being acceptable goals to bad goals?
 

super6646

Registered User
Apr 16, 2018
17,910
15,769
Calgary
Exactly. Now let's say we take away all the extra shots. Does that mean that those goals that went in are more saveable? They go from being acceptable goals to bad goals?

Take away the extra shots lol.

Besides the flawed logic with that, I never said markstrom’s goals were bad. I said the bar is too low for a goalie that should be a difference maker. He’s never making the “impossible” save, and he’s letting in too many savable pucks too.
 

JPeeper

Hail Satan!
Jan 4, 2015
11,676
8,861
Yes

In fact, didn't Sutter just say something along those lines "We don't have the talent, so we need shot volume"

Which is stupid.

Mangiapane, Lindholm, Toffoli are all capable of 40 goals, Kadri and Huberdeau should be good for 30 each, Backs, Dube, Coleman good for 20.

Team has goal scorers, but only one of them is actually living up to the potential (Toffoli), to me that says the coaching or system they're using is flawed.
 

Yepthatsme

Registered User
Oct 25, 2020
1,457
1,473
Yes, that's why we fail since most of those shots are just crap perimeter shots rather than quality shots.
This game that has not even been slightly the case. We are getting 10 bell chances again and again tonight.
 

Backlund

Registered User
Dec 29, 2009
5,185
1,282
Calgary, AB
We got scammed by huberdeau.

bamboozled.gif
 

Boomstick

Registered User
Oct 29, 2003
5,832
5,818
St. Catharines, Ontario
Visit site
If we had a 1 goal lead, and was playing like the Canucks are playing right now, the opposition would score easily. It's happened so many times this season.
Now when it's our turn, we aren't getting it done.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,483
14,802
Victoria
Take away the extra shots lol.

Besides the flawed logic with that, I never said markstrom’s goals were bad. I said the bar is too low for a goalie that should be a difference maker. He’s never making the “impossible” save, and he’s letting in too many savable pucks too.

It's not flawed logic at all unless you pretend that every shot by both teams is identical. And that, to me, is flawed logic. I have full confidence that Markstrom would stop 18 more shots that were well-defended. Those aren't the goals that have been going in.

Anyway, I get what you are saying about the bar for a difference-maker, but my whole deal is that the Flames' tendency to leak grade-AAA chances every game with a low shot total essentially removes the element of goaltending from their game. Realistically, having a good goalie is a bit of an unnecessary use of assets if this is how we play, and if we brought up Dustin Wolf we'd just destroy his confidence.

So to me, there is just no point in complaining about goaltending. He's making the saves he's supposed to make while the team's play gives him very little chance to put up good numbers. We're losing because of consistent critical breakdowns and a lack of any kind of plan on the PP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RasmusAndersson

flames23

Registered User
Mar 11, 2010
3,234
3,206
Burnaby
Figured we'd outshoot em 40-20 or so and lose. Canucks are allergic to getting into the Bedard sweepstakes and we absolutely love a 9-10th seed. Worst case for both franchises is a Canucks win so that shall be had.
 

MM917

Registered User
Aug 18, 2022
1,094
605
Which is stupid.

Mangiapane, Lindholm, Toffoli are all capable of 40 goals, Kadri and Huberdeau should be good for 30 each, Backs, Dube, Coleman good for 20.

Team has goal scorers, but only one of them is actually living up to the potential (Toffoli), to me that says the coaching or system they're using is flawed.

40 goals???? Lindholm got it once playing in the sweetest situation he likely will ever get how are those 3 players capable of 40 goals when they have 1 40 goal season between then in 23 seasons?

Kadri twice has 30 goals in 10 seasons and that was 5 years ago expecting him to get 30 goals is very optimistic, Hubreadeau twice in 8 seasons.

Those are pretty unrealistic expectations for one of those things to happen. The teams doesn't have goal scorers if you look at their typical output, it is only when you include their top outlier seasons that it looks ok. That is what I think is a major problem with how this team was built it relies on players hitting their peak performances to have a chance at success and that is not a realistic expectation for any team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightstorm

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad