Friday, April 17, 2009

game 1 postgame: answers

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.
:(

16 comments:

Fake Stephen Walkom (aka R O) said...

WI, I completely support Furlatt. Playoff hockey is an entirely different beast - regular season precedents are meaningless when it comes to making game-changing calls. It was a ballsy call, and it was the right call.

walkinvisible said...

some might say the glenX non-goal was also a "ballsy call." others (myself included) call it incorrect... as for last night, i will recognize that in the moment at the very least, it looked like leopold might have contributed to the interference, but i will disagree completely that playoff hockey v. regular season hockey should be called differently.

i don't know about you but i look forward to further ballsy calls at the hands of furlatt, all of which seem to go against the flames.

R O said...

I am totally kidding earlier WI :) Furlatt was, is and will continue to be completely inept at his chosen profession.

some might say the glenX non-goal was also a "ballsy call.
"Some" being Stephen Walkom, head of league officiating.

walkinvisible said...

okay well NOW it's all funny.

when i first read your comment (and wondered, i might add, who stephen walkom was but clearly not enough to look it up) i was like "what's wrong with RO ??? he seems out of character..."

perhaps we can chalk up my obliviousness to sarcasm and total lack of joke-awareness to the fact that when the flames shit the proverbial bed last night, i boozed myself to sleep...

true...
;)

Brent G. said...

to be honest the amount of crap Cammalleri is getting for this hit to Havlats head I have to admit I kinda like it. Havlats that whiney little bitch and its about time someone got him to shut up. Ive always thought the flames should play this series like the Broad street bullies. If it means taking a couple penalties here or there it doesnt mean too much; they were excellent at killing them last night. I hope they up the intensity even more in the next game. It sounds dirty and I know that but I wanna see Sarich (who should be back) absolutely lay out Havlat. Like Stupid lay out. Take him off the ice on a stretcher hits. Hes not Marleau and wont get up after a similar hit I all but guarantee it. If thats what it takes to win who cares? There will be no asterick on the cup to specify as such.

I laughed I dont know about you guys. I guess im more for the old school hockey where every hit theres atleast a tiny intent to injure. Also if all these teams wanna keep hitting kipper why are we not hitting Habby back? They wont go near him, its no surprise hes making all of the saves.

walkinvisible said...

I laughed I dont know about you guys.

i totally laughed which is why in my post i wrote "kinda funny and totally out of character."

R O said...

If this doesn't cement Cammalleri's status as a future and long-term Flame, I don't know what will :)

walkinvisible said...

during the anthems, cammo looked positively... well... happy. did anyone else notice this ? he was like... i dunno... giddy.

maybe he was already thinking "i'm gonna knock that guy in the head and show everyone you don't have to have a BIG BODY to have a PRESENCE."

burningfish said...

and a couple of minutes after he scored he was practically vibrating on the bench grinning like a 4-yr old who had just consumed his parents stash of liquor-filled chocolates

Brent G. said...

Those are all great signs too. Yes he could go get 6+ mill from teams like Atlanta, Toronto, etc. and teams that arent likely to make the playoffs but his joy is both fun to watch and encouraging to think he will see something is more important than money. Flames have options on who can be traded to keep him (ie Langkow, Jokinen, sarich maybe?)

walkinvisible said...

Flames have options on who can be traded to keep him (ie Langkow, Jokinen, sarich maybe?).

1. darryl sutter will absolutely NOT trade jokinen on this contract. it would be an admission of fault and/or failure with what he gave up (most importantly the first rounder, here). i would be willing to wager pretty much anything on this.

2. langkow is the only elite centreman on the team. trading him would be a terrible idea (which is why it's totally possible that he'll go).

3. with the presumed loss of aucoin in the summer and the departure of (fingers crossed.... oh god please don't re-sign) warrener, eriksson and leopold, cory sarich becomes necessary on the blueline. gio-dion, sarich-regehr, pardy-palin/pelech. aulie and negrin are also in the wings but probably need a year or two in the A.

if we re-sign leopold, sarich becomes expendable.

R O said...

WI:

You know the prospects better than I, but I don't think Pelech will be ready for the Flames next year. Or, more specifically, I don't think the Flames will be ready for Pelech, as Gio and Pardy will stlll be kinda green and one of them will probably need to be on the bottom pairing. That would be an extremely exploitable pairing if another rookie D were on it (not that it's much better now). Year after next, I am all over Pelech on the team.

(Although, if Pelech usurps Vandermeer and forces him to the minors... well hey, trade a bottom-pairing D for a bottom-pairing D and save $1.5M? I'm all over that too!)

Don't worry about Warrener and Eriksson. I don't think even Sutter's loyalty will extend to a guy on LTIR all year and a guy who played in the AHL all year.

At this point, I don't even wanna know what Sutter is thinking about the forwards. The possibilities are too frightening.

Canucks just scored a goal on what I thought could have been a potential high stick. Why won't those bastards just die?

(figuratively of course)

walkinvisible said...

RO:
i really like you, man. you have some good brains.

sincerely,
WI

duncan said...

2. why the hell is anders eriksson being considered a top 4 defender ?I called it!

walkinvisible said...

yes you did.
and that's the only thing about it that makes me smile...

i'm very optimistic that he'll sit tonight. BUT i know that realistically it means if sarich is back then pardy will sit.

i hate this team.

R O said...

Thanks WI. You're quite the hockey thinker yourself. :)