I’m really interested to see how Lucic plays against his old buddies. That was the concern when he was in Edmonton if I’m not mistaken right? Him being more worried about getting invited to summer parties than forechecking.
Also a question to those more knowledgeable, does a track meet style game if it were to hypothetically happen benefit the Oilers or Flames more?
Oilers have more top end power, Flames has presumably more depth (?) and the better goaltender so not quite sure how a high scoring game would work.
I don't know if that's true. The Oilers have McDavid and a clearly hobbled Draisaitl.I’m really interested to see how Lucic plays against his old buddies. That was the concern when he was in Edmonton if I’m not mistaken right? Him being more worried about getting invited to summer parties than forechecking.
Also a question to those more knowledgeable, does a track meet style game if it were to hypothetically happen benefit the Oilers or Flames more?
Oilers have more top end power, Flames has presumably more depth (?) and the better goaltender so not quite sure how a high scoring game would work.
Okay thank you for the clarification, was that issue with Lucic while he was in Edmonton just a figment of my imagination? Thinking back now we never played any of his previous teams in the playoffs.It's been a couple years now, and Edmonton has had some fairly significant turnover; don't think that should be any kind of an issue here.
Plus I don't think these players will have a hard time getting going, especially the faces on the other side.
Agreed Lucic "friends" storyline is old news, not a factor.It's been a couple years now, and Edmonton has had some fairly significant turnover; don't think that should be any kind of an issue here.
Plus I don't think these players will have a hard time getting going, especially the faces on the other side.
Agreed Lucic "friends" storyline is old news, not a factor.
Track meet might even the playing field for the Oilers a bit, but in no circumstance would I say it benefits them to the extent that they have a better chance at winning than the Flames. We are underdogs, no doubt.
The only issue with the Flames strategy in my opinion is that if the game turns into a physical trench warfare style of game, McDavid can still punish the Flames offensively. I’m not sure if I can say the same about Tkachuk (who probably would be more interested in fighting Kassian) and Johnny Hockey.I think Edmonton's game plan is to open it wide, where they have the advantage of McDavid who could score 3-4 points any game on his own. This is the way the Oilers win.
I think Calgary's plan will be to make this an absolute muck show. Every inch of ice is paid for in full, they'll look to control 70-65% of shots like they did with Dallas. No defenseman will go unpunished for playing the puck, every whistle will have some sort of physical intimidation portion to it; I imagine they'll be getting into Smith's ear early and often because he's clearly not level-headed.
Stylistically it'll be very interesting to see how things shake out.
The only issue with the Flames strategy in my opinion is that if the game turns into a physical trench warfare style of game, McDavid can still punish the Flames offensively. I’m not sure if I can say the same about Tkachuk (who probably would be more interested in fighting Kassian) and Johnny Hockey.
I didn’t catch much of the Flames/Stars series so excuse my ignorance but wasn’t that the gripe with Tkachuk?This ain't the regular season. Sutter would be pissed if a 1st liner fought a plug.
You fight someone and it better be roughly equivalent skill wise.
I didn’t catch much of the Flames/Stars series so excuse my ignorance but wasn’t that the gripe with Tkachuk?
Or was the Tkachuk/Klingberg (?) thing a a one off isolated incident? Or are you saying they have roughly same effect on the ice?
One fight with Klingberg was fine. The second one was moronic. Tkachuk was infintely better when he just played the skill game in game 6 and 7.
If he took a top 4 defense out with a fight I'd be fine with that trade-off.