Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JTech780

Oct. 3rd Calgary Flames at Colorado Avelanche

Recommended Posts

I would say that Kylington made a few glaring mistakes, but made some really good defensive plays as well.

Hamonic was the saem; poor exit passes that were immediately turned over.

Also made good defensive plays.

 

17 minutes for Lucic mugging a player with no call until after.

No more than a roughing call after a boarding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit surprised at some of the takes here. The first was bad but I thought through both the 2nd and the 3rd the Flames were the better team. Game was mostly back and forth, which you should expect from 2 good teams, but I thought the Flames controlled more of the play in the final 40 mins The won the Coris, scoring chance and shot attempt battle at almost 60% across the board. 

 

For me there were 3 key things that cost them the game

1. A really poor call on what was a pretty obvious high stick

2. A really bad turnover by Hamonic at the blueline attempting a breakout in the 2nd. Breakouts are a real problem for the Flames against the Avs and Hamonic attempted a really dumb fip out of his own zone and gave it right to the Avs. They scored less than a minute later where up to that point the Flames were taking over.

3. PK was really, really bad. 

 

Lots to clean up but I saw mostly positives out of the game. Pepsi center is going to be a tough place to play this year (usually is anyway). 

 

Won't surprise me if Frolik sits next game, or maybe the put Bennett on that line. It's 1 game and he started slow last year but he was really bad last night. Peters won't like that from a veteran player. 

 

I'm with Jtech on Kylington, it's hard to see the Flames being comfortable with him in that spot for the season. At his age and his experience level there are just too many plays that make you scratch your head. I still think the smart play is to give him at least 10-15 games of a steady role and see what happens but this has also been his MO since his draft year.  It's not what I would do, but I wouldn't be shocked if he's in the press box on Saturday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I'm with Jtech on Kylington, it's hard to see the Flames being comfortable with him in that spot for the season. At his age and his experience level there are just too many plays that make you scratch your head. I still think the smart play is to give him at least 10-15 games of a steady role and see what happens but this has also been his MO since his draft year.  It's not what I would do, but I wouldn't be shocked if he's in the press box on Saturday.

 

We have given lots of rope to Hanifin, Hamonic (Year 1), Stone over the years.  He hasn't been consistently playing on the Flames.

It doesn't make sense to scratch him after a single game.

Stone coming in makes the pairings either not work (Ras-Stone) or be adjusted to fit him in (Brodie-Stone).

 

I would not point to him as being the worst player on the ice.

Janko, Backlund and Frolik would be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical for the flames, slow start to the game with strong push in the 3rd..also this team usually is slow to start the season anyway...kinda just a Flames thing...no worries, wait and see 10 games in 

 

hopefully BP can light a fire under them for the start of games, every game! Playing 20 mins will never with a hockey game, that’s the bad habit they had in the playoffs last year...Peters hit the hammer on the nail in the post game interview so at least he’s aware of the problem...hopefully he can fix it 🤞

Share this post


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

EGCnstuXoAggA3J.jpg

 

I understand they couldn't review this based on current rules, which sucks but ok.

 

but this is a good example of why I find it frustrating the NHL is so reluctant to use coach challenges. I'd like to see them adopt the NFL style system where you get a limited about of challenges per game and then expand the amount of things you can challenge. This is a great example of something that would have been easily and quickly reversed, in all likelihood, if you had a coach's challenge. If it results in a goal why keep the list so small of things you can review, why not get the scoring plays right?

 

I don't get the NHL's hesitation here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I understand they couldn't review this based on current rules, which sucks but ok.

 

but this is a good example of why I find it frustrating the NHL is so reluctant to use coach challenges. I'd like to see them adopt the NFL style system where you get a limited about of challenges per game and then expand the amount of things you can challenge. This is a great example of something that would have been easily and quickly reversed, in all likelihood, if you had a coach's challenge. If it results in a goal why keep the list so small of things you can review, why not get the scoring plays right?

 

I don't get the NHL's hesitation here. 

 

The rule did change and they are allow to challenge, if it meets the conditions.

The refs interpreted it to not have occured in the O-zone, even if it lead directly to the goal.

 

NEW CATEGORY: In addition to Coach's Challenge for "Off-side" and "Interference on the Goalkeeper", a third category will allow for the Coach's Challenge of goal calls on the ice that follow plays in the Offensive Zone that should have resulted in a play stoppage, but did not.

This change will allow Challenges of plays that may involve pucks that hit the spectator netting, pucks that are high-sticked to a teammate in the offensive zone, pucks that have gone out of play but are subsequently touched in the offensive zone and hand passes that precede without a play stoppage and ultimately conclude in the scoring of a goal. Plays that entail "discretionary stoppages" (e.g. penalty calls) will not be subject to a Coach's Challenge.

Coach's Challenges for these types of plays (and for "Off-Side" Challenges) will only be available if the puck does not come out of the attacking zone between the time of the "missed" infraction and the time the goal is scored.

Share this post


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

 

The rule did change and they are allow to challenge, if it meets the conditions.

The refs interpreted it to not have occured in the O-zone, even if it lead directly to the goal.

 

NEW CATEGORY: In addition to Coach's Challenge for "Off-side" and "Interference on the Goalkeeper", a third category will allow for the Coach's Challenge of goal calls on the ice that follow plays in the Offensive Zone that should have resulted in a play stoppage, but did not.

This change will allow Challenges of plays that may involve pucks that hit the spectator netting, pucks that are high-sticked to a teammate in the offensive zone, pucks that have gone out of play but are subsequently touched in the offensive zone and hand passes that precede without a play stoppage and ultimately conclude in the scoring of a goal. Plays that entail "discretionary stoppages" (e.g. penalty calls) will not be subject to a Coach's Challenge.

Coach's Challenges for these types of plays (and for "Off-Side" Challenges) will only be available if the puck does not come out of the attacking zone between the time of the "missed" infraction and the time the goal is scored.

 

Based on the rules the right call was made, and I understand that. My beef is the way the rule is designed. They are going half way all the time and doing band aid solutions, instead of actually trying to get things right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I understand they couldn't review this based on current rules, which sucks but ok.

 

but this is a good example of why I find it frustrating the NHL is so reluctant to use coach challenges. I'd like to see them adopt the NFL style system where you get a limited about of challenges per game and then expand the amount of things you can challenge. This is a great example of something that would have been easily and quickly reversed, in all likelihood, if you had a coach's challenge. If it results in a goal why keep the list so small of things you can review, why not get the scoring plays right?

 

I don't get the NHL's hesitation here. 

the hesitation is.. in my opinion.. a Bettman thing..,, He doesn't want to be seen copying other major sports leagues with their rule changes..bettman still has too much to say in how the league runs

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Horsman1 said:

the hesitation is.. in my opinion.. a Bettman thing..,, He doesn't want to be seen copying other major sports leagues with their rule changes..bettman still has too much to say in how the league runs''. With the elimination of the blue line the offensive zone now in reality.. is anything beyond the center line.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I would say that Kylington made a few glaring mistakes, but made some really good defensive plays as well.

Hamonic was the saem; poor exit passes that were immediately turned over.

Also made good defensive plays.

 

17 minutes for Lucic mugging a player with no call until after.

No more than a roughing call after a boarding.

 

 

I think we are being too hard on Kylington.

 

I watched the Canucks vs Oilers game and there honestly wasn't a huge gap between Kylington and Quinn Hughes.  Both players under sized and relies on their speed/agility to make plays.  Both players take risks and make dangerous plays.  We have to let the kids play and make some mistakes or they will never learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I see the hesitation is that they are trying to avoid having 5 minute reviews. I think they are really worried about reviews taking too long, more so then they are about getting all the calls right. I think there is also an element of not taking all the power from the on ice officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, cross16 said:

PK the difference. That’s going to be a problem if the flames don’t fix it and change up what they are doing. It sucks. 

 

Outside of that, lots to like. 

still don't like the fact that the forwards skate like hell to get into the opposition zone only to drop it back to d men every single time  at the blueline instead of bringing it all the way into the net area

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The_People1 said:

 

I think we are being too hard on Kylington.

 

I watched the Canucks vs Oilers game and there honestly wasn't a huge gap between Kylington and Quinn Hughes.  Both players under sized and relies on their speed/agility to make plays.  Both players take risks and make dangerous plays.  We have to let the kids play and make some mistakes or they will never learn.

 

I have been very hard on Kylington, and I will say that he showed some nice things last night, like a good stick and his skating is elite and, which allows him to get back and recover. The issue I had with him last night is that his reads were terrible which left him needing to use his speed and recover far too often.

 

The biggest difference between Hughes and Kylington is that Hughes is a game changer in the offensive zone, I haven't seen that from Kylington yet, or at least not on a consistent basis. Also Kylington should be ahead of Hughes seeing as Kylington is going on 5 years of pro experience and Hughes has 6 games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Based on the rules the right call was made, and I understand that. My beef is the way the rule is designed. They are going half way all the time and doing band aid solutions, instead of actually trying to get things right. 

 

I agree, I think fans also just want to see the right call made.

 

I get they want to speed up the game and prevent coaches from abusing the challenge.  It disrupts flow and it helps rests your bench.  But what's the point of reviews at all if there are limitations?  Just make the penalty a delay of game penalty and that will make coaches challenge only obvious referee blunders like this high stick example.  It should work.

 

By the letter of the law, the refs were right to refuse a challenge yesterday but by the spirit of the law, that was a total fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JTech780 said:

 

I have been very hard on Kylington, and I will say that he showed some nice things last night, like a good stick and his skating is elite and, which allows him to get back and recover. The issue I had with him last night is that his reads were terrible which left him needing to use his speed and recover far too often.

 

The biggest difference between Hughes and Kylington is that Hughes is a game changer in the offensive zone, I haven't seen that from Kylington yet, or at least not on a consistent basis. Also Kylington should be ahead of Hughes seeing as Kylington is going on 5 years of pro experience and Hughes has 6 games.

 

Mostly agree but let's remember Hughes is projected top pairing D in about 2 years.  Kylington is just trying to hold down a 6/7 role long term.  Hughes has a long ways to go but Kylington is almost there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that it likely comes down to game speed and coaches abusing it but those are easily worked around. You cap the amount of challenges a coach has and you penalize them for bad reviews. 

 

So I guess I don't understand why they think those factors are more important than getting the calls right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The_People1 said:

My thoughts on the game (understanding it's game 1),

 

Good,

- Giordano still has it

- Rittich made some great saves.  Looked poised and unrattled

- D was jumping up on the play constantly

- We were a couple posts away from stealing this game.  Missed 2-on-1 and Monahan breakaway

- During the playoffs, we had no answer to the Avs big D, Johnson, Zadorov, and Cole punished us.  We answered that with Lucic today.

- Lucic is slow but was still able to get involved in the play.  Already having a bigger impact than Neal did for us last season.

- PP had some good looks

 

Bad,

- 5 on 5 wasn't great.  Only able to sustain offensive pressure late in the 3rd period.  The ice felt tilted against us tonight.

- We aren't fast enough to play our game against the Avs.

- Our PK still fails to stop the Avs PP

- Secondary threats were almost absent.  The "3rd and 4th" lines were mostly invisible, really missing Hathaway more than i thought.

 

Ugly,

- Why was that high stick goal (by Landeskog in center ice) not reviewed?

- Why so many penalties?  There was no flow to the game.

- Kadri looked really good, wish we made that Brodie trade for him.

they talked a bit about the non Kadri trade,, says it took him two days to say no to the trade even though Flames were on his no trade list.. Mrs. Kadri had the final say it sounds like..How much influence does The Hockey Wives have?? We have all the same stores to shop at in any major North American city.. so it can't be that

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MP5029 said:

Typical for the flames, slow start to the game with strong push in the 3rd..also this team usually is slow to start the season anyway...kinda just a Flames thing...no worries, wait and see 10 games in 

 

hopefully BP can light a fire under them for the start of games, every game! Playing 20 mins will never with a hockey game, that’s the bad habit they had in the playoffs last year...Peters hit the hammer on the nail in the post game interview so at least he’s aware of the problem...hopefully he can fix it 🤞

 

 

I think that’s a huge problem because you exert more energy chasing and by the midway point the first line gets overplayed trying to come back and do, but then they have sluggish slow second half of the season, which maybe due to that, two years in a row. 

 

Can say monahan had had an injury in one, but wasn’t injured in the other. If you give him the break on it, gotta give Rittich one too for his numbers then after his injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cross16 said:

I get that it likely comes down to game speed and coaches abusing it but those are easily worked around. You cap the amount of challenges a coach has and you penalize them for bad reviews. 

 

So I guess I don't understand why they think those factors are more important than getting the calls right

 

 

I agree. I think Toronto should just call and say that goal can’t count. The goals that go undetected get reversed so they should just do the same with ones that shouldn’t count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the game frustrating to watch. Was nice to Zadorov get BTC slapped last night as I though the game settled down after that. Penalty kill is Satoshi Nakamoto still. Thought Kylinton looked fine last night , was not overly impressed with Anderson or Hammer. I still am a huge advocate to get rid of Brodie, once again everything he does is a bonus to the other team. Last night showed more glaring issues still.  For a team desperate to show redemption last night left you questioning a few things. Czaruik, Mags spent more time on the ice than on their feet. If there in the line up to create offense Rinalodo could be just as effective as he could at least create some turnovers with his physicality. Lets hope the Vancouver game so more guys show up. For a team where much of the roster is the same they left you wishing for more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

I found the game frustrating to watch. Was nice to Zadorov get BTC slapped last night as I though the game settled down after that. Penalty kill is Satoshi Nakamoto still. Thought Kylinton looked fine last night , was not overly impressed with Anderson or Hammer. I still am a huge advocate to get rid of Brodie, once again everything he does is a bonus to the other team. Last night showed more glaring issues still.  For a team desperate to show redemption last night left you questioning a few things. Czaruik, Mags spent more time on the ice than on their feet. If there in the line up to create offense Rinalodo could be just as effective as he could at least create some turnovers with his physicality. Lets hope the Vancouver game so more guys show up. For a team where much of the roster is the same they left you wishing for more

 

 

That has been my issue the past few years. A lot of the core being back and the slow to start and a supposed need for a response (last year’s playoffs). We can’t use the new players excuses anymore as it’s the same team. 

 

I kist think we have a procrastinating group. They need to be behind in order to take initiative. If they’re not behind they can almost be lethargic.

 

they end up having to shorten the bench. Maybe it is why we were so slow to get going in the playoffs?

 

i love that we have the puck more than the other team, but I think there has to be more to it than that. It says we get more chances, but I still think we can be a bit riskier in the offensive zone. I think teams are ok with us as I think the offence is predictable. They’re just controlling the kind of chances we get. But if it comes from a “high danger area” it is put down as such. 

 

Maybe I am wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The_People1 said:

I agree, I think fans also just want to see the right call made.

 

I would hope that out of 4 people wearing striped shirts that are supposed to be watching the game. at least one of them would notice that there was a guy out on the ice playing lacrosse...   The fact that not even one of them caught that, was made even more annoying as the play ended up with the puck in the back of the net...

 

          7bed074986110e1b230e938eb68f57e1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Based on the rules the right call was made, and I understand that. My beef is the way the rule is designed. They are going half way all the time and doing band aid solutions, instead of actually trying to get things right. 

 

The challenge rules are one thing.

How do 4 guys miss a blatant play like that?

In real time it was obvious.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that was an unfortunate loss. We were never in the game.

Just a continuation of what we seen in our last 5 games in April.

COL speed forced us into early penalties and we immediately fall behind the eight ball, then try to play catch-up unsuccessfully for the remainder of the evening.

The team talks about learning from last year, but we see same Satoshi Nakamoto for another 60min.

Next up are the much improved Canucks who beat us 4 times last year.

Lets see how much learning we done in the long off-season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...