Last April around this time, the Flames had a golden opportunity to claim a play-off spot by beating a woeful Oilers club, which they squandered. Instead, Edmonton ended up with their only regulation win in the last 30 games of the season (if I recall correctly).
Calgary backed into a post-season berth anyways thanks to an Avalanche loss to the Preds, but the defeat to Greasers was a harbinger of things to come.
And here we are again, one year later. The NW division crown is pretty much beyond the Flames reach and all that's left now is a mad scramble to ensure some sort of play-off appearance. And Edmonton is once again the obstacle, although this time they are one of the hottest teams in the league rather than a weak sister. Hardly ideal circumstances.
Calgary's obvious objective now is to avoid placing 7th or 8th in the conference: sixth means seeing Minnesota in the first round instead of SJS or DET, thereby increasing the chances of a first round victory (or least a 7 game series) significantly. It's becoming ever clearer, from the shitty special teams to the negative GD to the recent swoon, that the Flames would be mere cannon fodder before juggernauts like the Sharks or the Wings in April. Against the Wild, at least, Calgary has a fighting chance to make things interesting.
Bitching points:
- I've raised this issue a couple times this year, but it bears re-examination after the Canucks game: why is Eric Godard in the line-up? He's a huge liability any time he takes the ice. He can't score, pass or skate and, guess what...HE DOESN'T ABLY DETER PESTS. All season, agitators like Burrows, Kesler and Ott have run amok with impunity:
Mike Keenan is a little ticked that Jarome Iginla and Dion Phaneuf allowes themselves to get sucked in by Canucks pests Alexandre Burrows and Ryan Kesler, among others, on Sunday. The way the coach puts it, he doesn't want to see his stars go into the box with players "not of equal value."
That from Inside the Flames. And Keenan's right, of couse. Except he should be questioning the value of the "enforcer" that he dresses on a nightly basis. An "enforcer" that does little more than occasionally fight other useless goons and gets pinned in his own end of the rink for long periods of time. Honestly, WTF is the point? Particularly when facing clubs like Vancouver who don't even possess a heavyweight of their own?
Baffling.
- Craig Conroy is likely a scratch tonight, thanks to an "upper-body" injury sustained against the 'Nucks. And that may not be such a bad thing. Before he got hurt, Conroy was playing terribly: his last 10 games, Connie mananged just 6 shots on net, 2 points and a -3 rating. His performance against the Oil on HNIC was especially appalling; he spent the entire evening giving the puck away in the defensive zone and singlehandedly killing offensive zone cycles. Also, Lombardi has stepped up and scored 2 goals in the last two games, in part thanks to increased ice-time in the top 6.
- Speaking of slumps, check out Owen Nolan's: his last goal came against LA on February 15th (21 games) and he has all of 1 assist in his last 7 matches.
With Huselius getting the stink eye and guys like Conroy and Nolan showing their age, it's no wonder the offense has totally dried up recently.
- Can we officially declare Sunday Night the worst game of the season for Robyn Regehr? He was on for 5 of the Canucks 6 goals, two of those coming from Vancouver's 4th line. In addition, Naslund's last-minute tying marker in the first period was a direct result of Reggie's boobery: he failed to intercept a stretch-pass in the neutral zone, resulting in a Vancouver 2on1, and then failed to take Naslund out of the play after the initial shot on net. I guess the good news is, there's NO WAY Regehr plays like that again any time soon.
Anyways, Prediction time - The Flames will finally pull one out of the fire. 3-2 Calgary. Iginla, Lombardi and Primeau for Calgary. Cogliano and Gilbert for the Oil.
Go Flames.
Update - Matt ABLY elucidates why Godard should be a healthy scratch in his pregame post.
16 comments:
I think we can declare that the worst game of the season, period. Last time I can remember a game that terrible was the 11-0 loss years ago to yes, Vancouver. (And Trevor Linden.)
Yikes. I posted my own before coming over here... either what we're saying is patently obvious and true, or we read each other's sites too much.
haha...
I think the Godard thing falls in the realm of the "patently obvious", particularly after the Vancouver game. Of course, it remains not-so-obvious to Keenan who persists in dressing Godard, so who knows...
with vandermeer beating the crap out of the opposition, do you really need godard...at all?
Indeed. That's the point, I think. Even fighting aside, Vandermeer is a much more routinely physical player than Godard, or rather, has much more of a physical impact on any given game. So does Regehr, Phaneuf, Sarich, Nolan, Iginla, etc. etc. I don't see that the Flames would be any less tough without Godard, except for the hard case of having someone to fight the Boogaards (and how many of them are there in the league, anyway -- 10?)
I sense a great disturbance in the force. Like a large number of oilers fans suddenly cried out and were silenced.
And if you think you need him to fight the Boogaards, dress him against Minnesota and not anybody else. It only costs you $525K, and you've satisfied your "need".
Thanks for staying focused on what's at hand while I remain ever-obsessed with "the big picture."
Hah! Mike Rogers, not usually a brilliant commentator, was just talking about how the Flames might dress 7 dmen, with the idea of one of them taking some shifts as a forward. But which one? Phaneuf, who has a bit of the scoring touch? Vandermeer, who could handle a checking role? No!
Hale!
I can't imagine a player who would be less suited to playing as a forward. His talents, such as they are, are exclusively suited to defence. Brilliant call, Rogers.
hahaha!
Love it.
You were saying about Nolan?
;)
omeone to fight the Boogaards (and how many of them are there in the league, anyway -- 10?)
i think there are ten, yes. and minnesota's got four of em.
re: Nolan - he certainly did his best to make me look foolish last night.
Has anyone else noticed the chemsitry between Lombo and Nolan whenever they've played together?
*sigh*
Well, good luck to the Flames in the playoffs. They'll certainly need it--especially if it's against Detroit, San Jose or a cannister full of HGH.
And Anaheim has three of the ten as well...
re: Nolan - he certainly did his best to make me look foolish last night.
It was still legit criticism though, I'm just giving you a hard time.
-therealdeal
Last time I can remember a game that terrible was the 11-0 loss years ago to yes, Vancouver. (And Trevor Linden.)
leanne, I was at that game, the one game I went to in Vancouver that whole year, 'cause I was a Flame fan and hated the 'nucks (still the case). IIRC Sergio Momesso had a big game against us.
Post a Comment