Postgame: A Positive Result

Calgary Flames David Moss (R) celebrates his goal with teammates Jay Bouwmeester (4) and Niklas Hagman during the first period of their NHL hockey game against the Chicago Blackhawks in Calgary, Alberta, November 19, 2010. REUTERS/Todd Korol (CANADA - Tags: SPORT ICE HOCKEY)

The Calgary Flames found the back of the net, and found the back of the net often on Friday night, taking a 7-2 win at home over the Chicago Blackhawks.  It was a strong game pretty much from start to finish for the home side, and thanks in part to a three goal night from Jarome Iginla, the Flames snapped a three game losing skid and did it against a pretty good opponent.

What Happened

CALGARY, CANADA - APRIL 6: Rene Bourque (C) of the Calgary Flames celebrates his goal with teammates Jarome Iginla #12 and Matt Stajan #18 against the San Jose Sharks in the third period of NHL action on April 6, 2010 at the Pengrowth Saddledome in Calgary, Alberta. (Photo by Mike Ridewood/Getty Images)
 

Well, it certainly didn’t start well, as Jack Skille potted his third of the season just 6:12 into the first period…it was a softie past Miikka Kiprusoff and put the Blackhawks up 1-0 early on.  But Calgary responded and put two past Chicago’s Marty Turco before the opening frame was up.  Niklas Hagman scored his 5th at 8:52 after the Hawks coughed up the puck three consecutive times in their own end; David Moss got his second on the powerplay at 12:28, doing a nice job in front of the net to put the Flames up by one after 20.

The second period belonged to the captain, as he scored twice in the middle frame, with the first coming at 10:01 on a nice rush into the offensive end.  After Calgary went up 3-1, it started to seem like maybe the Hawks would get themselves back in the game, as it was one of the only times on this night the Flames would play soft hockey.  But Calgary took advantage of a powerplay late in the second, and it was a key goal at a key time…Iginla’s fifth of the season at 18:42 gave the Flames the breathing room they needed heading into the final frame.

The third period was largely a non factor, but the postive I take from it was pointed out to me by Kent…even though the Hawks were down, Calgary still managed to keep the chances even in that final frame.  What does that mean?  Well, it means that the Flames didn’t really give the Hawks much at all.  Good stuff.  Overall, scoring chances were 21-17 in favor of Calgary, and 15-13 at even strength.  In that third, Brendan Morrison (fourth) and Curtis Glencross (sixth) each scored, while Iginla completed the hat trick at 18:10…his first trick since March of last season.  Troy Brouwer scored Chicago’s goal, with 20 second remaining.

One Good Reason…

…why the Flames won?  Because they were better, start to finish.  Even when Chicago’s big guns were on, they weren’t dominating because the Flames did a nice job of keeping them to the outside.  Jonathan Toews has the ability to take games over, and he was never once given the chance.  I really liked how Calgary played physically against this Hawks team, and they made life difficult.  The Flames were better at even strength, they were better on the powerplay (two goals) and they were perfect on the two times they found themselves shorthanded.

Red Warrior

Calgary Flames' Niklas Hagman (front) fights for the puck with Columbus Blue Jackets' Marc Methot during the first period of their NHL hockey game in Columbus, Ohio, October 22, 2010.  REUTERS/Matt Sullivan  (UNITED STATES - Tags: SPORT ICE HOCKEY)
 

Iginla had the hat trick, but I really, really liked Niklas Hagman.  He was on a line with Rene Bourque and Niklas Hagman in this game, and that line saw a lot of time against the Toews/Kane unit.  Hagman scored once, and was screening in front on Iginla’s second…plus, he did a strong job against a tough matchup.

Sum It Up

It’s a big win for Calgary, and they needed it heading into a five game win streak with those games being played in seven days.  It’s a mental block broken…snapping an eight game losing streak to the Hawks, and maybe…MAYBE…it gets them going on the right track heading into this trip.

  • Man, those people, those ignorant people who don’t do rigorous advanced stat analysis.

    Who ever said anything about rigor and advancement?

    We’re talking about seeing what happens on the ice and maybe using a few simple numbers like shots and scoring chances that help us see reality a little more clearly.

    Jaysus. It’s been years since pocket protectors were in style.

  • You advocated trading David Moss for low picks which is along with the rebuild talk is a pretty good indicator that you don’t have much in the way of applicable knowledge regarding evaluating hockey players nor building winning hockey teams.

    So every idea of “rebuild” that comes from you is essentially a straight and narrow path that leads to endless suckage.

    Also, to dissuade you of some misconceptions:
    1.) Yzerman was never the best player on any of Detroit’s Cup winners.
    2.) Handzus, Williams and Smyth play some pretty important minutes for LA, minutes that need to be played by good players for a team to win.
    3.) There is no sure thing prospect until you get, say, to the top 1. Maybe top 3 if you want to be really generous. It’s kind of hard to play in this league!
    4.) The way to build “sustain” good teams is to add good players, not subtract them.

  • Just keep throwing the Moss stuff back in my face all you want. Your mind is made up – I’m an idiot. My mind is made up – you’re a condescending prick. I’ve already went back on my Moss talk. My advocation of dealing Moss was not because I thought he was terrible. It was because a) I wrongly expected more offense from him last year, b) we seemingly had an excess of 3rd liners & a lack of draft picks, and c) I figured of all the excess 3rd liners, Moss might bring the most return. In any case, I’ve already said that Kent’s piece on Moss from September put things in better perspective… something your constant “you’re dumber than me” approach fails to do.

  • And for the record Richard, I know the players in LA you mention are quality players that can play quality minutes. My point – why trade Iggy if we’re just acquiring other veteran’s with poorer resumes. Obviously an Iggy trade would mean they’re acknowledging that they can’t win with this group. Moving him and getting Handzus, Smyth or Williams (UFA to be) instead of a younger poor-man’s Iggy isn’t gonna help. Bottom out this year, get a top 5 pick, and given the extra cap space, fill holes with quality UFA’s in the summer.

  • Moving him and getting Handzus, Smyth or Williams (UFA to be) instead of a younger poor-man’s Iggy isn’t gonna help

    Instead? Who said instead?
    We were talking Handzus/Smyth/Williams + Schenn for Iggy instead of that awful Schenn + first + Hickey deal. First + Hickey is nearly worthless.

  • I coulda swore you said you’d rather have Smyth/Handzus/Williams + Schenn than Simmonds + Schenn, no? I’m not high on Hickey myself. Schenn, Hickey & a 1st (in the 20’s) could very well just be Schenn. I don’t care for that deal. But I wouldn’t really mind if it were some variation of Schenn, Matt Greene & a 1st or Schenn, Jarret Stoll & Colten Teubert.

  • I coulda swore you said you’d rather have Smyth/Handzus/Williams + Schenn than Simmonds + Schenn, no?

    Yes. I still stand by that. Simmonds as a comparable (even with “poorman” qualifier) to Iginla… well that’s more than a bit wild if you’re talking about any version of Jarome pre-October 2008.

    An Iggy for just Smyth or Williams or the like is probably not worth it. Same with an Iggy for just Schenn plus junk trade. I don’t see what’s wrong with getting a player who’ll really help you win now plus a player you can try to make into someone who’ll help you win later though.

    Tanking to the bottom 5 is so risky. It’s not just trading a couple players, you have to trade or mishandle so many decent players (and Calgary has a lot) and there is no guarantee, *none*, of success at any point in the five years following.

    There isn’t even a guarantee of hitting the bottom 5 even if you have a bottom 5 worthy roster. You may make 15th like Colorado did, and then what? The next year the team is shittastic again.

    The only way you can even really ensure a short-term tank is to play ECHL goalies. And honestly, that’s not fair to the players.

    And intentionally losing, any way you slice it, is not fair to the fans.

  • So every idea of “rebuild” that comes from you is essentially a straight and narrow path that leads to endless suckage. -RO

    ..agreed.

    Just keep throwing the Moss stuff back in my face all you want. Your mind is made up – I’m an idiot. My mind is made up – you’re a condescending prick. -RossCreek

    …gotta love RO hey RossCreek? LOL.