10,257 posts in this topic

42 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Look, we had enough chances to bury the puck but Jones was dialed in.

The Janko chance point-blank.

The Monahan chances (two IIRC) were point blank.

A penalty shot for cripes sakes (weak Bennett attempt not withstanding).

 

The difference between us and a lot of team is that we don't get shots away at weak goalies.

Smith's first goal against.  Far post, unscreened.  Seen that story a dozen times.

How many times have you seen a shot like that from the Flames go in.

Very few shots like that on the rush.  Maybe Tkachuk's from last week.

 

No, I'm not pinning th loss on Smith, just the first goal.

He made up for it later, but against a hot goalie, you only get so many chances.

 

Thats where they gotta find a way because in the playoffs almost every goalie is a hot goalie. 

 

Jankowski should’ve went top shelf. I think that’s where this team has it’s problems. We have three snipers but only two are dialed in. The depth scoring isn’t pulling its weight. And when Tkachuk scores it seems he’s on the Monahan/Gaudreau line. Just saying they gotta start shooting it to where it has a better chance of going in. I see a few good chances but it’s not enough. On goalies like that you gotta get ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a blog in The Athletic about Flames galtending by Darren Haynes.  You have ot be a sunscriber to read the whole article, but it didn;t start out very complimentary to Smith:  

 

 

Big goal. Bad goal.
Sunday night’s game at the SAP Center in San Jose began with a scene that’s become all too familiar for the Calgary Flames.
Fifty seconds into a key divisional showdown with the Sharks and they were already one behind on the scoresheet.
Circling in the offensive zone, Evander Kane took a pass from Joe Pavelski and from the faceoff dot, fired a snap shot that cleanly beat goaltender Mike Smith on his glove side. San Jose would not relinquish that lead, going on to a 3-1 victory.
In evaluating goals against, there are two criteria:
Was the shot stoppable?
How did it impact the game?
This was a double-dip of yuck for Calgary.

To begin, Smith and his enormous 6-foot-4 frame needs to at least get a piece of a shot from that angle and distance, regardless of how precise it is.
Second, it was a significant goal to surrender as it immediately put the Flames back on their heels.
 
Not asking anyone to copy the article, but wondered if anyone read it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, travel_dude said:

There's a blog in The Athletic about Flames galtending by Darren Haynes.  You have ot be a sunscriber to read the whole article, but it didn;t start out very complimentary to Smith:  

 

 

Big goal. Bad goal.
Sunday night’s game at the SAP Center in San Jose began with a scene that’s become all too familiar for the Calgary Flames.
Fifty seconds into a key divisional showdown with the Sharks and they were already one behind on the scoresheet.
Circling in the offensive zone, Evander Kane took a pass from Joe Pavelski and from the faceoff dot, fired a snap shot that cleanly beat goaltender Mike Smith on his glove side. San Jose would not relinquish that lead, going on to a 3-1 victory.
In evaluating goals against, there are two criteria:
Was the shot stoppable?
How did it impact the game?
This was a double-dip of yuck for Calgary.

To begin, Smith and his enormous 6-foot-4 frame needs to at least get a piece of a shot from that angle and distance, regardless of how precise it is.
Second, it was a significant goal to surrender as it immediately put the Flames back on their heels.
 
Not asking anyone to copy the article, but wondered if anyone read it.  

That goal did not define the game that prevailed at all. Our guys responded very well IMO and the difference was Jones in the other net. I would like to put some of these writers in the net just so they know how fast a "snap shot" can be by one of the best goal scorers. Smith played by far is best game of the season and the writers find a way to not let up on the negative story of our season so far. It makes me wanna puke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

That goal did not define the game that prevailed at all. Our guys responded very well IMO and the difference was Jones in the other net. I would like to put some of these writers in the net just so they know how fast a "snap shot" can be by one of the best goal scorers. Smith played by far is best game of the season and the writers find a way to not let up on the negative story of our season so far. It makes me wanna puke.

 

So, you read it and not just the excerpt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, you read it and not just the excerpt?

Actually I did not, no access nor do I care to read much from sportwriters these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

Actually I did not, no access nor do I care to read much from sportwriters these days.

 

Haynes is one of the most neutral writers that cover the Flames.

He can be a bit too positive at times, but nothing like fanboy Steinberg or Wills can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smith starting against Montreal.

Does that mean Rittich against EDM or is it Mike wins, he stays in and if Mike loses, he gets to do better next time.

I get the logic of giving Smith a chance to get the win after a letdown, but at some point you need to go to the goalie that is winning games.

Asking the team to have to score 3+ goals per game is asking for trouble.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.