Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

Neufy_3

SeniorMembers
  • Content Count

    5,095
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Neufy_3

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Yeah, it'll take more than this to put me down . Given how frustrating this season has been, I'm just glad it's (almost) over to be honest. Now we can focus on trying to fix some of the things that are wrong with this team, and hopefully we can come back and be a contender again for the division next year. I'm not really that disappointed considering the Flames have been mediocre or worse since December, but I am definitely not liking where the team is at this point in time. I hope we can somehow pawn some of our crap off on some other teams, and I really wish we had our 1st (and 2nd) rounder this year. Not having that pick is killing me right now, lol. Sutter's dug himself a pretty big hole this year, and whether he gets to fix his mess or not remains to be seen. If he gets his chance to fix it all, which I think he probably will, it'll be a good litmus test to see how good of a GM he still is and how much he's learned from his failings.
  2. [quote name='The_Don wrote: Flame111 wrote: DL44'] So... many... brain... farts....! You couldnt really blame Luongo too much on most of the goals except the last one. lots of deflections, screens, and nice goals. 1 logical reason is Raycroft was gonna play tomorrow... might as well keep him fresh. Personally think the main reason he stayed in was because of the number of times AV has pulled in the last month (4times i think). I don't think he or Luongo wanted #5... logic said take him out after the 5th goal or 2nd period... but they decided to suck it up... probably didn't expect a 3 goal 3rd. on a plus side - That Raymond-Sedin-Kesler line ended up looking pretty good after Burrows went down. at least we know a good mix if Danny misses any more. Luon8o - DL44 seriously has the homer glasses on. Yeah, how homeristic of DL to blame the entire team rather than just Luongo. The entire stank it up last night. No defensive coverage, I don't think we touched the puck in the offensive zone in the first period. Ro8erto 7uongo. That's funny coming from Cal9ary. That's awesome. For that you win the internet. Don't get too big-headed now, though
  3. [quote name='The_Don wrote: DL44']He will. I'm convinced that there was no way the ownership would of approved the long term signings if they were at all wavering on how they felt about Sutter's performance. Any competent management group plays out the what if scenarios and should have action plans in place.... They definitely are buying what Sutter is selling em.... for now. This is how I saw it at the time of the Phaneuf and Jokinen trades. Ownership either directly or indirectly let Sutter know he was on the hot seat. That he had to make some changes and turn the team around before the end of the season. Feeling this pressure Sutter made a couple drastic changes including trading away their supposed franchise defenceman who was Sutter's pick and project. That stank bad of desperation. I honestly think Sutter could have gotten a much better deal than he got from Toronto. I think it would have been better for the Flames if he had traded Phaneuf for another potential franchise player (probably forward) that may be struggling elsewhere. Like the Latendresse/Pouliot deal on a bigger scale. Maybe for a player like Nathan Horton. Now I am getting a little sidetracked but my point is that Sutter pulled a couple desperation moves to try to save his job, and they backfired. I would be surprised if he was still the GM by draft time Yes, but Sutter is still being allowed to work out extensions for our players. Apparently an extension for Ian White is almost done, and he was allowed to extend both Bourque and Stajan after his "blockbuster" trades in early February. If the ownership was seriously considering firing Sutter right now, then why would they approve a bunch of contract extensions by him? I can understand them approving the Bourque and Stajan extensions, given how much time was left in the season at those points and how we had yet to see fully what our new roster was capable of... but if they are seriously considering letter Darryl go at this point, you'd have to think they wouldn't be letting him discuss any more contract extensions. Ownership would've put a kibosh on Sutter by now if that's the direction they're leaning. Honestly, for the good or for the bad, I think we've got one more year of Darryl as our GM.
  4. How did I know that the Canucks would lose in overtime, giving us the worst possible result? How rude! I mean, for the amount of favors we've done for your team over the last couple of seasons you sure don't feel like repaying us at all. Jerks.
  5. [quote name='TheAce wrote: SWiTCHRiDE']alright bean-town!!! 2-0 against the canucks. its funny they said that the canucks are getting a "wake up call" because the game is early. I remember a little while ago some announcer said that the canucks try to weasel into getting the later games because roberto is a princess with his warmup routine. vancouver on the road as i prediceted. 1) sedins are invinsible CHECK 2) luongo is nothing special CHECK 3) canuck fans are calling a two game losses in a row a slump CHECK 4) flames fans get to grind the salt into the wound hard CHECK CHECK I think you are gonna need to uncheck # 2 and # 4 there bud....... Ah, the classic case of premature gloating coming back to bite you...
  6. It very well could be. I do feel a lot of the time that we play way too much of a perimeter game, and we don't get dirty enough to score goals. There are a lot of times where I wish our guys would just shoot and go hard for the rebounds but we don't do that nearly enough. I especially wish we would start doing it more this year when we've had trouble scoring goals. We haven't really gone for the garbage goals a whole lot ever since Darryl left the bench, come to think of it. I guess it's acceptable with the talent we had on the team the past few years, but this year we really need to start grinding it out for our goals... at least until we get our offense going again.
  7. [quote name='The_Don wrote: Neufy_3 wrote: The_Don'] Just thought I'd remind Neufy of our little bet here. Yep, I know I've lost already... no real biggie. That's what I get for having faith, apparently... If I said at the start of the year that Henirk had a better chance of winner the Art Ross AND Hart than Phaneuf winning the Norris, even I woulda chuckled. But here we are... Yeah, the world of hockey is a funny (and cruel ) place sometimes...
  8. [quote name='The_Don wrote: Neufy_3 wrote: The_Don'] Well I could say "I bet you he won't!" but there is no accountability there. If he [Phaneuf] wins the Norris this year, my signature will be of your choosingfrom the Awards night right to the start of the next regular season.If he does not, than your signature will be of my choosing from Awards Night to the start of the next regular season.deal? Sure, deal. And I know there's noaccountability just saying he won't but it's kinda funny that you'rethe only one who does sig bets with others, lol Just thought I'd remind Neufy of our little bet here. Yep, I know I've lost already... no real biggie. That's what I get for having faith, apparently...
  9. Fair enough. It is BS though and you're right - if it's a penalty, call it and if it's not, don't. Refs really shouldn't let their personal biases creep into the way they call games, but they do. And I remember probably a dozen penalties called against Bertuzzi last year that were just on reputation alone, so we know how you feel on that one.
  10. [quote name='The_Don wrote: Hiphopopotamus wrote: The_Don']Regarding tonights canuck game: I thought Saturday was poorly officiated game. This was the exact opposite. Two guys bump, one falls. Penalty. Guys steps on stick, falls. Penalty. Burrows loses balance. Penalty for diving. Canucks finally get a break with a PP. two straight Canucks penalties. Horse Manure. Considering all the PP's the Canucks have gotten when Burrows actually dived, I don't really see the problem. If he actually dove. Whatever. I get the call. But he didn't. He had his legs out wide and reached out too far. it wasn't a penalty, but he wasn't trying to draw anything, he just lost his balance. Burrows just called out the refs after the game. Good. He could easily get fined for the comments and I don't think he cares. It needed to be said. Reputation maybe? I don't pay a lot of attention to Burrows when he isn't playing us or scoring out his you-know-what, so I don't know how often he actually gets called for diving, but I do know that he does try to over-sell penalties and trips on the occasion (and more than a few times against us). My guess is that the refs gave him the Bertuzzi treatment on that penalty...
  11. Hey, I'm just telling you where it came from...But to answer your question, I don't think it'll stick. You can start using it if you want, but 7uongo is just a little more aesthetically pleasing, given the "7" looks like an upside-down "L" and all...
  12. People started doing it after his bad game 6 against Chicago where he allowed 7 goals.
×
×
  • Create New...