| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 14:27:25
Here I figured I'd get you started on this one too. I'm sure you can find enough flaws to fill a topic though!
Don't worry, I'll be supporting you the whole time! |
| 16 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| KeithQuinn |
Posted - 05/14/2008 : 14:22:43
go flames go |
| Ddeathblade |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 16:57:45
I'd have to say the Calgary doesn't suck, and neither does Vancouver. However, Luongo is more spectacular than Kiprusoff. Their pretty equal in terms of defense, besides Phaneuf's booming slap shot. In terms of offense, Vancouver is more dangerous. The Sedin twins are like psychic. They can tell where each other are. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 03/02/2007 : 00:37:40
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by wyntyre
So if the Flames have no depth...what does the Vancouver Moose have?...I live in winnipeg and the Moose are doin' pretty good....but I don't see anybody wanting to call up Lee "Elbows" Goren anytime soon where as if there was space, Boyd would be up...as would Prust
I'm not sure this makes much sense..... 
I think he is saying that the Flames have a whole lot more depth than the Canucks. I agree. If it weren't for Luongo they would be behind the Oilers right now...maybe Colorado.
Not sure how the Canucks got into this thread.... Anyways, Canucks got Luongo, Calgary's got Kipper... and Nucks are in 1st and have 3 more wins than the Flames (Nux are top 10? 8? in the NHL in wins).
As for overall depth, I think it's a little early to compare Calgary and Vancouver. I would agree that it seems like Calgary has a little more potential depth, but proven depth? that's very debatable. |
| leigh |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 22:35:33
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by wyntyre
So if the Flames have no depth...what does the Vancouver Moose have?...I live in winnipeg and the Moose are doin' pretty good....but I don't see anybody wanting to call up Lee "Elbows" Goren anytime soon where as if there was space, Boyd would be up...as would Prust
I'm not sure this makes much sense.....
I think he is saying that the Flames have a whole lot more depth than the Canucks. I agree. If it weren't for Luongo they would be behind the Oilers right now...maybe Colorado. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 21:21:05
quote:
Originally posted by wyntyre
So if the Flames have no depth...what does the Vancouver Moose have?...I live in winnipeg and the Moose are doin' pretty good....but I don't see anybody wanting to call up Lee "Elbows" Goren anytime soon where as if there was space, Boyd would be up...as would Prust
I'm not sure this makes much sense..... |
| wyntyre |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 20:41:12
So if the Flames have no depth...what does the Vancouver Moose have?...I live in winnipeg and the Moose are doin' pretty good....but I don't see anybody wanting to call up Lee "Elbows" Goren anytime soon where as if there was space, Boyd would be up...as would Prust
Can't go...The Roads Are Dirty |
| tctitans |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 22:29:52
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
tctitans, I gotta disagree whole heartedly. I think the Flames have more depth than they have had in 15 years.
Iginla, Tanguay, Huselius, Langkow, Conroy, Lombardi.
Phaneuf, Hamrlik, Regehr, Stuart,
The problem is that Kipper is slumping and they have a freakishly crappy road record. I do think that your comment about missing Sutter on the bench may have some merit though. Somewhere between Sutter's defensive strategy and Playfair's offense is the key.
Hey Leigh, I agree with ya! "Flames have more depth than they have had in 15 years". But I still think that they are an average team on paper. ;) |
| leigh |
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 12:48:19
tctitans, I gotta disagree whole heartedly. I think the Flames have more depth than they have had in 15 years.
Iginla, Tanguay, Huselius, Langkow, Conroy, Lombardi.
Phaneuf, Hamrlik, Regehr, Stuart,
The problem is that Kipper is slumping and they have a freakishly crappy road record. I do think that your comment about missing Sutter on the bench may have some merit though. Somewhere between Sutter's defensive strategy and Playfair's offense is the key. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 02/26/2007 : 12:02:11
What I dont understand is how Calgary is doing as well as they are. On paper they are an average team at best. In theory, they have a great keeper and Jarome and things start to tail off. They have a decent D, but not as good as previous years (Phaneuf is good (offensively at least), Reghr is normally good (not this year) but the previous years' depth is clearly absent (Hamrlik is over the hill). They have some decent young talent, but not yet proven. Huselius has always been super skilled, and extremely soft. Calgary has been a good change for him this year and he's having a career year. They are scoring lots of goals (8th in the league, and I still dont know where the smoke and mirrors are coming from)
but their D is most definately suffering. I can't remember the last time I saw a Flames Defensive core so pourous and scrambly.
I'm not surprised at all that the wheels are starting to fall off... Especially with Sutter missing from the reigns - he was always able to keep them playing well above their heads.
|
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 19:20:16
So leigh, you up for round 2 of our wager? They play this Saturday on HNIC, this time at the Saddledome. Same bet, same rules? Hopefully Marleau and Toskala will be back but I'm confident SJ could take you guys anyway.
Up for it, or was round 1 bad enough for you?  |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 01/05/2007 : 16:37:14
quote:
Originally posted by bablaboushka
So leigh, how could Calgary lose to VANCOUVER?????????
Well for what it's worth, the Flames did beat the Panthers and the Oilers...
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=190465&hubname=
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=190927&hubname=
Still, it's not like they're the greatest team in the league. |
| Blubberboy |
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 16:59:20
I know
Vancouver ain't that good and we beat them!!!!
OMG
WTF
ROTFLOL
LOL
Go Vancouver |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 16:46:47
So leigh, how could Calgary lose to VANCOUVER????????? |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 12/26/2006 : 15:09:40
On any given night anyone can whoop anyone. |
| blade |
Posted - 12/26/2006 : 09:57:22
good analysis. By the numbers you're right, but on any given night the Calgary Flames can whoop any team in the league!
|
| leigh |
Posted - 12/24/2006 : 17:25:55
Babs, I didn't know losing a bet could hurt sooooo much. 
Well 'sucks' may be an overstatement but I now have your attention. Here is a team that on paper should be much more dominant than they are in their division. What is the problem with the Calgary Flames this year? Is it goal tending or goal scoring? I would say both, plus some special team impotency.
Let's start with goal tending; while Kiprusoff is a world-class goalie, he can't be relied upon night after night. 60+ games a year is far too many for any tender, even Kipper. The Flames desperately need a back up that they can go to for at least 30 games, or more (if injury becomes a factor) per season. McLennan, who has a GAA of 3.59, is not that kid...yet. Look at San Jose, they have this area of their game shored up with Toskala and Nabokov who practically share duties evenly (Nabokov's GAA is 1.97, second to only Hasek! And Toskala is nothing to cry about either with 2.20)
As for goal scoring, depth becomes an issue for the Flames. Now an interesting fact about the goal scoring between these 2 Western Conference teams is that if you compare their top 6 point getters (at the time of this writing), Calgary has considerably more points. But that is where the advantage begins to taper off; after you reach the 10th player in points in each team's list, San Jose pulls ahead and continues to stay in front. Ultimately San Jose finishes with 12 more goals on the season. Doesn't sound like much, but consider that Calgary has lost in OT or regulation by 1 goal 8 times, and San Jose has won by 1 goal 8 times, you start to see the significance of a dozen goals. So, what this means is that San Jose is getting production at a deeper level. They are simply getting solid tertiary goal scoring and therefore winning more games.
But when you look even closer at the two teams, the most glaring difference is their Power Play special teams. The difference is staggering and may actually be the 'x' factor in San Jose's incredible domination in the West this year (except for Anaheim, of course. Who saw that coming 2 years ago???) Five on five the two teams are dead even with 55 goals each. Five on four SJS has scored 32 times to CGY's 23! At five on three we see SJS tripling CGY with an impressive 9 goals! Yes, if you total it all up SJS PP is firing at an incredible 22.5% and CGY PP is firing at a laughable 15.6%, well below the league average of 17.15% |
|
|
