Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

Cubicon

SeniorMembers
  • Content Count

    518
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Cubicon last won the day on October 30 2011

Cubicon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

43 Excellent

About Cubicon

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. He'll land a gig in Russia somewhere.
  2. I don't think it's that bad. Check out the first-round predictions on NHL.com. Every expert they included picked the Flames to get to the second round. The only other unanimous picks were Tampa and Washington (though I find that odd... Washington's a good team, but Carolina would scare me). https://www.nhl.com/news/stanley-cup-playoffs-first-round-predictions-by-nhlcom-staff-members/c-306567428 Sporting News is saying Flames in 5. https://www.sportingnews.com/ca/nhl/news/nhl-playoffs-2019-predictions-odds-flames-avalanche/1fppdh2omiftt1trlynpmtkmok And even the bookies are giving us the second best chance next to Tampa.
  3. I don't know what the media's strange fascination with the Oilers is about. Below is the main page of the National Post's sports section today. After a game 81 loss, their last home game of a brutal season, there's nothing but Oilers articles. How about writing articles on the Canadian teams that are actually going to the playoffs? There are only a few side-bar articles about the Habs and one mention of the Jets. I don't get it.
  4. There's no re-seeding. The second we clinched the conference on Sunday night, we were guaranteed to play the second wildcard team in the first round (likely COL), then the winner of SJS/VGK in the second round. If we make it to the third round, it'll be whoever's left of the remaining western teams (for my money, I'm going with STL, who are peaking at just the right time).
  5. This is basically what I thought at the beginning of the season. I expected the Flames to be battling VGK and SJS for one of the three divisional spots, hoping we'd come in at least 3rd. Definitely didn't expect them to be head and shoulders ahead of anyone else in the division and have clinched the entire western conference before April.
  6. And thus, the magic number is 4. Any combination of 4 wins by us or 4 losses by SJS and the conference is ours. With 7 games remaining, I'd say our chances are excellent.
  7. Yeah. I was reading an article in the Edmonton Sun that came out yesterday (https://edmontonsun.com/sports/hockey/nhl/edmonton-oilers/it-is-a-little-odd-despite-setbacks-the-edmonton-oilers-are-still-in-the-playoff-hunt). The first line is literally: "How are the Edmonton Oilers still in the playoff race?" Um... they're not. Not only are they 6 points out of a playoff spot with 7 games left, they have to jump over 5 other teams to get there. And if that weren't bad enough, all of those teams play each other multiple times, which guarantees that some of them are getting points. Sportsclubstats has their chances at 0.8%. I guess that's enough for Oilers media to think "so you're saying there's a chance..." They're not doing their fans any favours by pretending they have a chance. I don't know what's in the water up there that makes them so delusional.
  8. I do like the current jerseys, but the retros are the best. This is good news and I hope they make it a permanent change.
  9. So by my calculations, our magic number for clinching the division is 6. Any combination of 6 CGY wins or SJS losses and the division, and conference, is ours. Could be down to 5 by tonight, depending on how the SJS @ ANA game goes.
  10. What would be more sad: Edmonton winning the lottery when they don't even remotely deserve it or Ottawa winning it even though they traded the pick away?
  11. For the sake of Jack Hughes, let's hope this is true. We don't need the Oilers ruining another promising young star.
  12. Cubicon

    Goaltending

    Yeah, but that's my point. You can't say that developing your own goaltenders is uncommon when 1/3 of the league is doing it successfully. And of the remaining 2/3 who have been trying to trade for a starting goaltender, how many have even been successful? Here's my quick list of teams that don't have an undisputed starting goaltender: Buffalo Calgary Carolina Edmonton Florida NY Islanders New Jersey Philadelphia So that leaves you with 9 teams that have traded for their starter: Arizona (Darcy Kuemper) Columbus (Sergei Bobrovsky) Colorado (Semyon Varlamov) Dallas (Ben Bishop) Minnesota (Devan Dubnyk) Ottawa (Craig Anderson) San Jose (Martin Jones) Toronto (Frederik Andersen) Vancouver (Jacob Markstrom) And these are just starters on their respective teams. It doesn't mean these are bona fide #1 goalies. All I'm trying to say is that trading for a starting goalie is by no means the usual thing to do. I think the Flames are stuck with a lot of other teams that are trying to get this strategy to work without much success while a third of the league has figured out how to draft and develop goaltenders properly. Yes the Flames need to do this, but it's by no mean revolutionary. (PS: add Corey Crawford to the list of #1's playing with the team that drafted them. It may be a bad year, but he's been a legit #1 for them in years past.)
  13. Cubicon

    Goaltending

    Current starting goalies that are playing with the team that drafted them: Connor Hellebuyck Braden Holtby Carey Price John Gibson Jimmy Howard Henrik Lundqvist Andrei Vasilevsky Pekka Rinne Matt Murray Jonathan Quick Jake Allen Then add Tukka Rask to the list, whose rights were only held by Toronto for a year and has played his entire career with Boston. I'd say he had "come through one organization." That's over a third of the league with home-grown keepers. I agree that goalies take a while to develop and that predicting their performance from year to year is pure divination, but I wouldn't call developing your own goalies an uncommon thing.
  14. Don't confuse intelligence with education. There are some brilliant high school dropouts and some - arguably many - really stupid MBA grads. True, intelligence is usually considered a requirement for getting a higher education, but don't make the mistake of assuming that just because someone hasn't gone to college that makes them stupid. And that's not even going into all the different types of intelligence. Being good at anything that requires mental effort, be it hockey, painting, writing, engineering, particle physics, etc., can be considered having intelligence.
×
×
  • Create New...