T1B

...than the Calgary Flames?

another 1-0 victory


Without Kiprusoff you're nothing........NOTHING!!!!!!

1-0

flames.......

They may win but they are god aweful to watch.

The bitterness in this thread is palpable.

- =

The bittermen in this thread apparently need to be told: Miikka Kiprusoff IS a Calgary Flame, so your point is moot.

His performance last night was hardly out-of-this-world anyway. Lots of easy shots from the outside. The only time he really stood up and played amazing was during that two-man advantage.

As for the Flames being boring, sure, if you're not cheering for them. They give other fans absolutely nothing to cheer for. That's the plan too. Myself, I quite enjoy watching them. Seems about 20,000 of my closest friends were pretty happy about it last night too.

Would it be safe to assume that Al? thinks Kiprusoff is the MVP of the league this year?

He should win the Hart hands down.

Flames fan, you know your team is garage without Kiprusoff; even with half those shutouts, they are at 67 pts and out of the playoffs, so enjoy your smugness, and I hope you enjoyed 03/04, it's as close to the Cup as you'll ever get again.

fookin flames

al? wrote:Flames fan, you know your team is garage without Kiprusoff; even with half those shutouts, they are at 67 pts and out of the playoffs, so enjoy your smugness, and I hope you enjoyed 03/04, it's as close to the Cup as you'll ever get again.

At risk of seeming like I'm talking to a wall, let me break this down for you again: The Flames are not without Kiprusoff. He is a Flame. The Flames do not have 67 points and are not out of the playoffs.

The shutouts are as much due to the team play as it is their goaltender. They don't score much BECAUSE they commit to not allowing as much. It's a funny thing how people keep pointing at their goals for and wondering how the Flames are doing so well.

All you have to do is score more than the other guys. That's all there is to the game.

al? wrote:He should win the Hart hands down.

Flames fan, you know your team is garage without Kiprusoff; even with half those shutouts, they are at 67 pts and out of the playoffs, so enjoy your smugness, and I hope you enjoyed 03/04, it's as close to the Cup as you'll ever get again.

fookin flames

Check the standings much?

3 CALGARY* 62 36 19 7 79

The one thing I'll say about Calgary is they aren't equiped to battle a team if a game becomes an offensive duel. They just don't have the firepower. They have the fewest number of goals of any team currently in the playoffs and there are only two teams worse than them in offense. Their power play is decent at 18.3%...but if you stay out of the box against them, they don't score enough 5-on-5. The Flames have the second best home record in the league and they'll likely be playing at least one round with home ice advantage at this rate.

When it comes playoff time, it never hurts to have an outstanding goalie. Tell me a team that's won a cup where their goalie isn't one of their best players, if not the best player on the team during their run. The Flames have the goaltending to win the Stanley Cup...almost did it two years ago. They just need to figure out how to score a few goals. You do play uglier games in the playoffs and they've proven to be strong in the 2-1, 3-2, 1-0 type of games. Frankly, I wouldn't want to face them early on and if the standings stay the way they are, the Wings can avoid Calgary until the conference finals. It's not pretty hockey but it's effective in the postseason.

Shoalzie wrote:The one thing I'll say about Calgary is they aren't equiped to battle a team if a game becomes an offensive duel. They just don't have the firepower.

This is not necessarily true. There have been about 5 games this year where they've gone toe-to-toe with teams in high-scoring games. They've come out on top on those too.

The thing about the Flames is that about 8 of their forwards have underachieved offensively so far this year. That can still change, and my bet is that it likely will. It's Sutter's way of building towards the playoffs. They perfect the not-so-finer points of the game in the beginning (like defense and chipping the puck out and cycling endlessly), and work on the other things (like offensive plays, odd-man-rushes) once the simpler things are driven into their heads.

The way Sutter takes a group of individuals at the beginning of the season and builds them into a team by the end is unique among coaches I've watched closely.

Much like 2004, the Flames you saw up to this point might not be the same as the team you'll see in the future.

If you were going to tell me that Iginla wouldn't even be in the top 50 scorers in the league and they'd have only one player in the top 100 in points, and that only three teams would have leading scorers with fewer points than the leading scorer of the Flames...I would've thought the Flames would be in last place in the Northwest. As critical as al? has been of the Flames...Kiprusoff and Phaneuf are keeping this team afloat right now. Their attack just isn't very intimidating right now. Like I said, as long as you don't give them power plays...you can keep them off the board. Langkow hasn't been able to come close to replacing Conroy's production, Donovan is having a huge letdown season after his career year last season and I would've expected more than 12 goals from Amonte eventhough he's on the downside of his career. The Flames can be fortunate that Vancouver and Colorado has been waffling this year...no one has really taken that division over. If the Oilers can catch fire...they can win the division...only 6 points back of Calgary. With the bad trade the Avs made and with Svatos out...I think Colorado is in trouble. Vancouver added depth to their defense but I'm not sold on their goaltending. Calgary needs to win those key games in the division down the stretch to preserve a home ice advantage for the first round. They have the 2nd best home record in the league...they have to use that to their advantage.

AcidQueen wrote:
Check the standings much?

3 CALGARY* 62 36 19 7 79

idiot much?

2 points for a win, count 5 1-0 victories (all Kiprusoff) as loses (10 points)

79 - 10 = 69pts.....9th place Anahiem has 70.

77,79.....whats the difference? The point is you're an idiot and the Flames are not a playoff team without Kiprusoff.

Ok, without Kiprusoff it's possible that they might not be in the same position that they are in now. But as JD explained quite well, this isn't an issue because they aren't without Kiprusoff. And even if he wasn't a Flame, which is most certainly is, I can assure you that Sutter would've taken steps to either replace him or bolster their offense. As it stands, he doesn't have to, because... Kipper is a Flame.

And that's why he's probably the MVP of the league. If you take a player off a team and they wouldn't be nearly as good without them...that guy is an MVP candidate. I think al? is just illustrating that thought. It's not like someone is going to obduct Kiprusoff tomorrow and the Flames will fall off the face of the earth...unless... :wink:

Donovan wrote: But as JD explained quite well, this isn't an issue because they aren't without Kiprusoff.

and in the next breath

Donovan wrote:And even if he wasn't a Flame

hella lame.

make up your mind flame fan......are you gravytraining your goaltender or not?

save it. we know the answer.

al? wrote:

AcidQueen wrote:
Check the standings much?

3 CALGARY* 62 36 19 7 79

idiot much?

That question could be better asked of you.

2 points for a win, count 5 1-0 victories (all Kiprusoff) as loses (10 points)

79 - 10 = 69pts.....9th place Anahiem has 70.

I thought you said Kiprusoff wasn't a Flame? Is he a Flame or isn't he? Since when is a win not a win? Shall we go back a redact all the one-goal wins the Wings have had this season, gravytrainer?

The point is I'm an idiot

FTFY

AcidQueen wrote:
I thought.....

don't strain yourself.

AcidQueen wrote:Shall we go back a redact all the one-goal wins the Wings have had this season

Wings just dusted the Kings 7-3 and regularly beat teams by 2 or more. How many 7 goal games by the shames? Wings have 6 20-goal or more guys, and they don't have to rely on a freak of a goaltender every single night.

But this thread is not to extoll the virtues of the Red Wings, it is to expose the fraudulant flames, picked at the beginning of the year as a lock for the finals, as a one man show.

btw, how do you back a redact? Just curious.

Well you guys can keep pointing to stats and say the Flames aren't a good team because they don't have 18 20 goal-scorers... whatever boys.

The only stat that actually means anything at all is W's. And the Flames have plenty of those.

Langkow hasn't come close to replacing Conroy's production? Pardon? Conroy had 6 goals in 03-04!

al? can criticize all he wants because I'm pretty sure he sees his share of Flames games and 90% of his opinion in this thread is pure trolling anyway, but Shoalzie, I'm disappointed in your analysis of the Flames. It's entirely based on numbers that you went and plucked off some statsheet somewhere. Watch the Flames sometime, and count the number of ridiculous, out-of-this-world saves Kiprusoff makes in the game, and then come back here and tell me he carries this team. He doesn't. He is one of their better players for sure, but all players on the roster are held responsible for keeping the goals-against down.

Broken record, out.

JD,

Why can't you just admit the Flames are nowhere without Kiprusoff?

De Nile is not just a river in Egypt. Kiprusoff goes down and the Flames are just another also ran (which they will be sooner or later relying on one guy every night)

And Im pointing to one stat, flamefan ol' boy......shutouts, particularly 1-0 shutouts. Without them your team is not in the playoffs. Not a troll, a fact.

Just sac up and cop to the fact the world beaters projected to go to the finals at the start of the year are a fraudulant one-man show.

....and p.s.. I've got your sig just about ready, what's the sentence? 1st round? 2nd round?

Today's Score:

Colorado 3, Calgary 0

:wink:

As for numbers...your record can't be disputed. al? wants to dump on your 1-0 wins but those count the same as 5-3 wins...Detroit won 5-3 tonight, by the way. I just find it astounding that a playoff bound and division contending team can be second in goals against and tied for the fewest goals scored in the league. Has a playoff team ever had the league's worst offense and the league's best defense? If the Flames could score more goals, they'd be more of a force in the league. Right now, I'm intimidated by their defense and goaltending but I'm not scared of their attack. I guess teams win in their own way but man, how do you get by with such a non-existent offense?

al? wrote:JD,

Why can't you just admit the Flames are nowhere without Kiprusoff?

Because that is your hypothetical dreamworld speculation. They are not without Kiprusoff.

These "world beaters projected to go to the finals at the start of the year" my still very well get there. The scoring will eventually pick up, a lot of the guys are snakebitten pretty badly, as evidenced in the portion of the Avs-Flames game I managed to watch yesterday.

The sig bet is good for one round and that's it. Got to leave room for more significant victories beyond that.

al? wrote:JD,

Why can't you just admit the Flames are going nowhere without Kiprusoff?

FTFY..

Without Kiprusoff, the Flames are out in the first round.

Goaltending makes or breaks a team in the playoffs.

Isn't that right Sens fans..

No, the Flames don't make the playoffs at all without Kiprusoff.

They're a shitty team of grinders with an all world goalie. No Kiprusoff, no hope. That's why flamefan doesn't even want to contmplate a world without their golden goose.

You will have to live that 'hypothetical dreamworld scenario' when someone gets smart and takes that fukker out, or he blows a knee/groin carrying that team of washers and dryers every night.

To the point of the thread, there doesnt seem to be much in the way of disagreement.....the flames are a totally bunk team.

Shoalzie wrote:The one thing I'll say about Calgary is they aren't equiped to battle a team if a game becomes an offensive duel. They just don't have the firepower. They have the fewest number of goals of any team currently in the playoffs and there are only two teams worse than them in offense. Their power play is decent at 18.3%...but if you stay out of the box against them, they don't score enough 5-on-5. The Flames have the second best home record in the league and they'll likely be playing at least one round with home ice advantage at this rate.

When it comes playoff time, it never hurts to have an outstanding goalie. Tell me a team that's won a cup where their goalie isn't one of their best players, if not the best player on the team during their run. The Flames have the goaltending to win the Stanley Cup...almost did it two years ago. They just need to figure out how to score a few goals. You do play uglier games in the playoffs and they've proven to be strong in the 2-1, 3-2, 1-0 type of games. Frankly, I wouldn't want to face them early on and if the standings stay the way they are, the Wings can avoid Calgary until the conference finals. It's not pretty hockey but it's effective in the postseason.

1997-98 Detroit Red Wings.
Chris Osgood played decent but was not one of the best players on that team at the time. He let in 2 center ice goals during the playoffs, both of them costing us games. Fedorov, Yzerman, Shanahan, Lidstrom, just to name a few players who were better players during that playoff run.

I've already told him, Osgood sucks. He won't have it.

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree al.

Like I say, the Flames are a slumping team. The fact that Kiprusoff allows them to win even when they are in a rut bodes well for them.

But to say, X team wouldn't be good without X player is:
a) Pointless to say, and
b) Applies to nearly every team.

Would Detroit be as good without Lidstrom? No, they'd probably be more along the lines of a Montreal sort of team. But why say it, because they DO have him!!

Say what you want about Osgood in '98...he posted a 2.11 GAA, 2 shutouts and a .925 save%. That Wings' team would've won with pretty much anyone back there but I wouldn't have blamed Ozzie if they didn't win. Yes, he let in those two goals but I can remember the next game against Dallas after letting in that Langenbrunner goal, he shut out the Stars to win the series. He took so much crap from fans and yet, he got his ring. People want to discredit what he did but the bottom line is they won the Stanley Cup.

JD wrote:Well we'll just have to agree to disagree al.

Like I say, the Flames are a slumping team. The fact that Kiprusoff allows them to win even when they are in a rut bodes well for them.

But to say, X team wouldn't be good without X player is:
a) Pointless to say, and
b) Applies to nearly every team.

Would Detroit be as good without Lidstrom? No, they'd probably be more along the lines of a Montreal sort of team. But why say it, because they DO have him!!

Valid points all around...however, you can't give Lidstrom all the credit for why the Wings are first in the West and second overall. Not use a cliche but this has been a total team effort and Babcock has lit a fire under some of the veterans. If you took Lidstrom off the Wings, they're still a playoff team and probably still a contender. You still have to contend with #13 and #40 up front and Schneider leads all defenseman in goals scored. Legace is always post Vezina-like numbers as well.

The whole 'take player X off team Y' argument is silly in a team success discussion but I think that's a great way to figure out who is the MVP in the league. Unless Kiprusoff gets hurt, he's the man in goal for the Flames and they'll remain a factor in the West with him back there. To play the 'what if' game is nothing more than a conversation piece but has no true meaning. It's not like the NHL will take away the Flames playoff spot because one guy is doing a great deal for them.

al? wrote: - =

Way to hold Nashville under 10.

Way to choke one up late to C-Bus Kipper can't win 'em all.

You're lucky the Jackets aren't in the NW.

al? wrote:Way to choke one up late to C-Bus Kipper can't win 'em all.

You're lucky the Jackets aren't in the NW.

The Flames lost again today, trol, err, al. Aren't you due for another post?

You're going to lose to the good teams.

I'm waiting for you to lose your next 4 and watch this city go into full grip mode.

You better scrape out wins against L.A and Edmonton, or your season is hurtling towards the drain.



I can't wait......it's so exciting.

2-4-1 on the road was brutal but of their 11 games left only 4 are away from the dome where sutter can get his match-ups.

As of right now, Calgary is tied with Colorado and 2 points up on Edmonton with a game in hand on both of them. Of all their remaining 11 games only Pheonix is out of the hunt.

Unfortunatly they've owned Edmonton all season.

I'm stunned the Avalanche have hung in with the Flames considering they traded away Aebischer and Theodore won't be back until the last couple of games of the season and they're without their Svatos and Tanguay. They have to be the biggest smoke and mirrors act in the Western Conference right now.

5 points seperating 7 teams fighting for 5 spots with 3 weeks to go...awesome! Awesome mostly because the Wings are in a safe position and I can casually enjoy this dog fight in the bottom half of the conference.

Shoalzie wrote:I'm stunned the Avalanche have hung in with the Flames considering they traded away Aebischer and Theodore won't be back until the last couple of games of the season and they're without their Svatos and Tanguay. Besides Calgary, they have to be the biggest smoke and mirrors act in the Western Conference right now.

FTFY,

You almost had it.


al?

How did I not see that coming...

I've been impressed by the play of the Avs' lesser-knowns like Brett Clark. I wouldn't say they're a smoke-and-mirrors team because they are getting great minutes out of guys like that. Not to mention, Joe Sakic looks like the Sakic of 1995 since the Olympics. He's been incredible.

And Peter Budaj is highly underrated. I laughed when I heard they were going with him until Theodore was back, but after having seen him play a few times, I'm nothing but impressed.

The Avs also appear to play a well-coached game, which is in stark contrast to the Tony Granato days of yore.

It could be the least talented Avs team, well, ever, but they have the make-up to do some damage in the playoffs. Unless of course they do start Theodore in favour of Budaj. Then it could all fall apart.

Budaj was solid for Slovakia in the Olympics. I think they'd be wise to stick with him instead of Theodore. Makes that trade with Montreal look worse now. I agree about Sakic...he's been awesome.