fFlames on the road

[dynamo45]

Hey Guys,
Just curious to hear some other opinions on the Flames road woes, and how do you see Van and Calgary fairing in the playoffs?

[Guy Incognito]

There\'s nothing a hot goalie can\'t do in the playoffs, and for that reason I could easily see Vancouver going all the way to the cup final, even without much by way of offence. The team has been solid, and Luongo has been consistenly good this season.

Calgary hasn\'t sold me on their ability to win this year. Kipper is amazing but he hasn\'t seemed to be all that great over the past month or so, and that road record concerns me. Also, much like Ottawa, Calgary has been blowing third period leads way too often (especially on the road, of course). If the team goes on a tear on the way into the playoffs though (and especially if Kipper dominates down the stretch), then I would gain a great deal of confidence in them, as on paper they are a very well-rounded team, finally having that offensive prowess that has long eluded them.

As of right now (and by current standings) I see the Flames losing in round 1, and the Canucks advancing at least to the conference finals.

[lanky522]

so by your logic, the Stanley cup finals will be new jersey vs. vancouver? I agree that a great goalie can do wonders for a team in the playoffs, but I don\'t think either NJ or Vancouver will be in the finals for this reason alone.

I\'d take a team that can consistantly score, over a team that consistantly doesn\'t score in this day and age. Over a 7 game series, you cannot win without offense. It just won\'t happen in the new NHL.

Just my take on things. If it is Vancouver vs. NJ... I love it for Nazzy out there in B.C., but it\'d be a heck of a boring finals series.

[Zorro]

my thoughts are by the time the playoffs roll around broduer and luongo are going to be sooooo damn tired from carrying their respective teams all year long, they are going to flop. I mean they might win a round or two but I just don\'t think they will have enough left in the tank. Vancouver really doesn\'t have enough scoring. And I just can\'t see NJ making a run this year, they have a good team that plays a \'system\' but really, I will take scoring in the new NHL over \'system\'. If you know what I mean. I just see teams like BUF OTT NSH SJ doing alot better...

[lanky522]

Yep.

I mean if you really think about it, a team that scores 3+ goals a game will get good enough defense and goaltending to win most playoff series\'. Therefore, NJ and vancouver, as well as other teams that cannot post 3+ goals a game have a disadvantage i think nowadays.

Don\'t get me wrong. No matter how good L.A.\'s scoring gets, they still won\'t win without a goaltender, but I think teams with great goal scoring and average goaltenders are better off in the playoffs these days than teams with great goaltenders and average scoring.

Solve the problem GM\'s, get consistant great goal scoring and great goaltending. You\'ll win it all!

[Guy Incognito]

I just spent forever replying to this only to have the site log me out and lose the post... hopefully I can do this again, more quickly.

lanky522 wrote:

so by your logic, the Stanley cup finals will be new jersey vs. vancouver?

All I said was that as things stand now, I expect Vancouver in the Conference Final. I have made no statements that logically imply I expect a NJ-Van final, since we don\'t know which goalies will be \"hot\".

I agree that a great goalie can do wonders for a team in the playoffs, but I don\'t think either NJ or Vancouver will be in the finals for this reason alone.

Nor do I. Perhaps I exaggerated when I said there\'s \"nothing\" a hot goalie can\'t do. Nobody wins championships for any one reason alone. But bear in mind my emphasis is not on great goalies, but \"hot\" goalies... hence my lack of faith in Calgary right now. Kipper is great overall, but needs to heat up soon for the Flames to have a chance, IMO.

I\'d take a team that can consistantly score, over a team that consistantly doesn\'t score in this day and age.

Me too, but you\'re pitting a strength against a weakness. Would you not also take a team that consistenly gives up few goals over one that consistently gives up many?

As a fan of the Ottawa Senators since they entered the league, I\'ve learned that there\'s pretty much no such thing as a team that consistently scores, come playoff time. Year after year I\'ve watched a top-5 offensive team get sent home early in the playoffs because they ran into the latest \"hot goalie\". Hasek, Joseph, Belfour, Brodeur, Miller... it gets pretty tiresome.

Over a 7 game series, you cannot win without offense. It just won\'t happen in the new NHL.

What does this mean? You can\'t win without offence, technically speaking, but nor can you win without defence. Obviously you can\'t win without outscoring your opponent. So by \"you can\'t win without offence\", do you mean without scoring 3+ goals? Lets look at a few examples.

Last year, Carolina managed only 9 goals in the final four games of their series against Montreal (2, 3, 2, 2), yet won all four games. You could, I suppose, argue that Montreal lost because they didn\'t have the offence, but they did manage 6 goals in each of the first 2 games against Gerber. The arrival of a hot goaltender in Ward turned that series around. In Buffalo\'s final 4 games against Ottawa, they also managed only 9 goals (2, 3, 1, 3), yet won 3 of those games. Again, the argument could be made that Ottawa simply lost due to poor offence, but if you\'re the GM trying to fix the team, could you possibly put a better offensive group out there than Spezza, Heatley, Alfredsson, Havlat, etc? Finally, Anaheim averaged only 2.42 goals per game in the Calgary series, yet came out on top in 7 games. While nobody\'s winning 0-0 games, I think these examples show that you can win a 7-game series more or less \"without offence\". Yet there are no teams out there (that I can think of off-hand, at least) with marginal defences (giving up 3, 4 or more goals per game) and winning due to great offence. You see the odd 6-5 or 7-6 game, but they are clearly the statistical outliers.

Just my take on things. If it is Vancouver vs. NJ... I love it for Nazzy out there in B.C., but it\'d be a heck of a boring finals series.

I agree. I\'d like to see NJ in particular lose in the first round. But if Brodeur stays hot heading into the postseason... you never know.

[Dobber]

God help us all. New Jersey and Vancouver? Shit man, that would put me to sleep early. I guess it would be good to catch up on it...


I hear ya though Guy - a hot goalie could do it. Thank goodness there are about 10 or 12 goalies that could become hot and take a team to the promised land.

The most exciting series? Pens-Sabres in a semi-final. That would be great! The winner playing the winner of Nashville-Anaheim. Stuff like that would keep me on the edge of my seat every single night. I think the Sharks and the Sens will sneak in there though.

[lanky522]

Man dobber, I gotta disagree.

Pens, Sharks in the finals would be a REDICULOUSLY entertaining series.

The sharks have a good shot too I think. They are getting hot at the right time, and Thornton/Cheechoo have really been steeping up. Nabokov\'s been holding down the fort, and Toskala will be fresh and ready at the start of the playoffs. Guerin gives them veteran leadership and (now) extra production.

Sharks could be very scary from now through May.

[Guy Incognito]

I just watched that Pittsburgh-Buffalo game, and it was awesome. I would love to see those two teams in a 7-game series. Of course I\'m a Sens fan first though.

Pens/Sharks could make a really exciting final. Cheechoo has been hot of late and might actually reach half of his goal total from last year.

I\'d rather see Nashville make it through though.

[mxpxillini35]

Lanky...I think you mean it would be a RIDICULOUSLY entertaining series...