J.I.A.H.N Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 Basically,the Flames had played their 3rd game in 4 nights, against a well rested Canuck team. We're you happy with our Effort? Were you Entertained? I personally felt it was a boring game, and it made me question whether the rest of the world is not right. Whether it is our line combinations, first line age, or over all talent level as compared to the rest of the league, or just bad coaching, it will be a long season if not figured out. At the end of the day, there is a lot of NHL associated people/agencies that has us ranked lower than what we think in our talent/final league standings. We were lucky last night, to get one shift we dominated...1 shift against a very tired hockey team. Luckily we are playing a couple of lesser teams to start of against.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B Cooper Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 First game of the year. New players. Lots of rust. Stop looking at the negative. The D played great. Miller played great. Despite being held back by his linemates, Bo had a great game. Guddy looks like the real deal. Sbisa played a solid game. We won. Jesus man. Who gives a pooh what the media says. First game of the year. It's a long season. Relax and enjoy some hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaner Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 They didn't play like a playoff team, but I think everyone did play hard. I think it appeared that some players like Baertschi were floating, but I blame that on the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monteeun Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 I felt it was ok. The line combination will be tested and changed so i don't think people should get all up and arms about it. While the Flames might have been tired, i also felt that we were still getting our legs going. We will know more about this team as the season goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 No, but it's early and a Division win is a Division win. The late game push by the Twins was nice, but the offense needs to be much much better. Miller and the defence were bright spots during an otherwise flat game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ihatetomatoes Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 I think both teams looked kinda $&!#ty out there tonight, offensively anyway. Seems ourselves and the Flames have very similar teams right now. A solid defense and one top line and 3 3rd lines which makes for a pretty boring product on the ice. I thought we played a hell of a lot better in the 3rd though and ot which kinda made up for the lackluster 1st 2 periods. All I can say is that if Horvat is on the 4th and the Sedins don't play a hell of a lot better than they did last night we won't be seeing many goals this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c00kies Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 I hate the typo in the title, just as much as I hated the amount/lack of offensive chances we got in the first half of the game (0 in the first period). We did start to turn it on, but it could have also been due to the Flames getting tired. We'll see how tonight's game goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odd. Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 I was pretty happy with Sbisa and Larsen last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monteeun Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, Odd. said: I was pretty happy with Sbisa and Larsen last night. Have to admit, they weren't liabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fateless Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 The 3rd period effort was excellent. If that team shows up on a consistent basis and we stay healthy - we have a playoff team. If we get that team only 1/3rd of our games, we're going to be in the basement (although I highly doubt lower than 70 points). Now to the real question. Are you going to fix that glaring mistake in the title? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaBamba Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 With how this team is built it needs to play to its strengths. I think this team could win the Stanley cup if fully committed to an Neutral Zone trap. Its not pretty to watch but our strength is preventing goals and capitalizing on mistakes. 3 in the Nuetral zone, Box and collapse the net in our own end. Capitalize on the other team turning the puck over in our clogged up neutral zone. Say at what you want about the trap but fully committed it's unbeatable. The Devils built a dynasty on it as the foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Type R Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 The team looked rusty, I don't think the 4th line had very much chemistry, but they were feisty. I felt Baertschi was trying to do too much alone, wasn't passing enough. Sutter had a good game, was dangerous on the ice, and skated very well. Gudbranson looked decent, but not even close to my expectation for him, he will be fun to watch as he gets comfortable. Hutton was fun to watch. Tanev isn't a shooter, I wish they would stop putting him in a situation that calls for it (PP). Sbisa had one of his better games as a Canuck, I hope there is more to come. Larsen was ok, but looks very small out there, someone compared him to Weber, they aren't entirely wrong. The Sedins were quiet until the 3rd, but that 2 minutes was all they needed to impress me, Erickson was buzzing all game, unfortunate gaff, but he made up for it. Edler looked great, he took the body, made some terrific shots (1 bad one) and was solid all around. Granlund was decent, but not a major threat. The number one surprise for me was MILLER, he played an outstanding game, deserves the shutout for that, but had some Canuck luck. All in all, it was a good game for an opener, and we got the 2 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 I particularly enjoyed that masterful Loui Eriksson goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJVD Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 Wrong quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cramarossa Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 I wasn't happy, but I wasn't unhappy either. The team looked really sluggish and rusty. Complaints about the line combos going into the evening seemed to have some merit, as it looked like there was zero chemistry on the middle two lines and each guy was playing every man for himself. Larsen and Sbisa actually surprised me; Luca in particular looked like he had one of his better nights. If they stay where they're at then there's no way this is a playoff team. Thankfully I don't think they've neared their final form. Switch up the line combos back to what we had in the last preseason game and I think it's a brand new team out there. Plus the series of back to backs will allow the guys to get up to game speed pretty quickly. We'll be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJVD Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 3 minutes ago, Type R said: The team looked rusty, I don't think the 4th line had very much chemistry, but they were feisty. I felt Baertschi was trying to do too much alone, wasn't passing enough. Sutter had a good game, was dangerous on the ice, and skated very well. Gudbranson looked decent, but not even close to my expectation for him, he will be fun to watch as he gets comfortable. Hutton was fun to watch. Tanev isn't a shooter, I wish they would stop putting him in a situation that calls for it (PP). Sbisa had one of his better games as a Canuck, I hope there is more to come. Larsen was ok, but looks very small out there, someone compared him to Weber, they aren't entirely wrong. The Sedins were quiet until the 3rd, but that 2 minutes was all they needed to impress me, Erickson was buzzing all game, unfortunate gaff, but he made up for it. Edler looked great, he took the body, made some terrific shots (1 bad one) and was solid all around. Granlund was decent, but not a major threat. The number one surprise for me was MILLER, he played an outstanding game, deserves the shutout for that, but had some Canuck luck. All in all, it was a good game for an opener, and we got the 2 points. Was Tanev on the pp? I thought PP1 was Larsen and 4 forwards, while pp2 had Edler and Hutton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Type R Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 3 minutes ago, MattJVD said: Was Tanev on the pp? I thought PP1 was Larsen and 4 forwards, while pp2 had Edler and Hutton. I thought he was, I could be wrong, I came out of the kitchen and was watching mid play and it looked like he came on during PP. Either way, Canucks were in control of play and he tried to make a shot, and it was ill-timed and underwhelming. He is a DFD at its purest form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCNeil Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 A good effort. Two of the major problems last year.....were third period play...we gave up leads in the 3rd at a historical rate.....and we sucked in OT. Often these two problems, combined in the same game a bunch of times. So doing the exact opposite in the first game is wonderful. Defensively we looked strong too, Miller had a great game, somehow the own goal takes away from that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 They looked a bit rusty the first couple periods and Miller and our revamped D held is in and looked GREAT doing so IMO. Once they shake off the rust and some of the newer lines get some chemistry and in game minutes, I think they'll look as I expect. Hardworking, tenacious if lacking a bit in contention level skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 12 minutes ago, MattJVD said: Was Tanev on the pp? I thought PP1 was Larsen and 4 forwards, while pp2 had Edler and Hutton. I'm pretty sure the Canucks went away from the 4-1 PP late in the 3rd. It's possible Tanev ended up on the PP late into the penalty too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.