so i don't really have a whole lot to add that didn't go down over in the comments on matchsticks and gasoline, but obviously that game made me ask a whole lotta questions that hopefully we see answers to in game 2.
1. how the hell does andre roy get the start over dustin boyd ??
i guess mike keenan bought into the pundits' main reason to pick the flames as winners over the 'hawks: big body presence. guess what ? 4 minutes of icetime does not bring a presence at all, big body or not. i also considered perhaps keenan bought into the "flames have more experience" thing, and since andre roy is one of three flames who'd won a cup (the other two being anders effing eriksson and cory sarich), his presence on the bench would be valuable. if andre roy was even dressed for any clutch games in the stanley cup finals when tbay won it in 04, the bench would have been where he was watching from....
well, it seems to me that both of those reasons are totally bunk, that dustin boyd would have really helped his team (especially in the last 5 minutes of a game where they were truly sucking), and once again the youngster gets the shaft. i'm honestly sick about how poorly the current flames coaches & management have dealt with boyder's career, and last night was no exception. if i were him, i would certainly not be jumping at re-signing this summer. helllooooo offersheets !
2. why the hell is anders eriksson being considered a top 4 defender ?
i'm not suggesting that the flames don't have issues on the blueline and i'm not even arguing that keenan's selection of eriksson over the options, to fill the hole left by regehr/sarich/gio, was the wrong choice.... but somehow last night, he became a superior option to both vandermeer and pardy for the coach; i'm not sure if this is more of an argument against keenan's abilities or proof of sutter's cap mismanagement (if eriksson is preferrable to pardy or vandermeer then why wasn't he in the NHL this season ???). either way, eriksson started fairly strong (i even said to my buddy mike in the first intermission, "eriksson's, surprisingly, not terrible) but steadily went downhill. on-ice for two goals against. the third was in OT. nuff said.
3. does eric furlatt understand how goalie interference works ???
cause he'll call a phantom no-goal when glenX had a quarter inch of skateblade in the blue paint moments before the puck went in there (a few weeks ago), but watched a whole lotta blackhawk intertwined with miikka on a PLAYOFF OVERTIME GOAL and it's a good goal. i dunno. there are arguments to make, sure. but either way you look at it, if one's no goal, then the other is no goal , in my opinion... if you can stand back after the glenX play and justify that it was interference then i would truly like to hear his excuse for last night's play. furlatt, without a doubt, made a mis-call on one or the other...
4. will calgary's powerplay EVER score ???
brutal, brutal, brutal.
5. will olli and iggy EVER get split up ???
also most intensely brutal...
6. has bertuzzi been teaching cammalleri how to be an asshole ?
bad move, cammo... kinda funny and totally out of character, but certainly not smart...
and, like my team often does, i was actually surprised at how well they played off the top. the first period was dominated by the flames, though it trailed off a little in the second. by the third period go-ahead goal, i was actually convinced my boys might actually win it ----which, of course, was immediately followed by them completely falling apart...
i have more to say but i gotta jet.