Monday, February 11, 2008

Would the real Flames please stand up?

Oh, my.

That was quite the game the other night, wasn't it? While it wasn't quite what I had in mind, I think the best thing about the game was that it was old-school Battle of Alberta nights, re-visited. The intensity (missing for at least a year and half) and the nastiness was back, plus some.

It's so easy to be frustrated by our fickle forwards however...either Alex Tanguay is totally snakebit, or he needs to work on his timing when it comes to shooting at the net. Lots of good chances gone bad.

I want to put out some kudos especially to David Hale - he's had a strong couple of outings.

No major complaints, unlike the Chicago game (I didn't see what happened - things went south after I left the house, evidently).

I've sat on the standings for our fantasy hockey league for far too long...let me do a belated update here:

1. Woolly brained (me)
2. The Pant Weasels (Dave's brother)
3. The Hopelesses (MG)
4. Flaming C
5. Completely Hammered (ST)
6. The Pantless Pirates (Dave <------ FINALLY not dead last!)
7. Craig Conroys (Duncan. Guy, you can't let Dave get ahead!)

Overall, it's pretty tight at both the top and bottom, with lots of room in the middle. I am, however, in complete awe of MG's +/- totals, at an unbelieveable +92. Crazy stuff.

10 comments:

  1. i have been going on and on and on about hale in the past week, and watched him critically during the game on saturday (i was directly beside the bench so i could really pay attention to when he was 2 feet away and when he was playing).

    the guy doesn't seem much like a liability anymore. he seems to be improving.... like.... alot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it's a higher comfort level with the system/city/etc/etc/etc/etc as well as getting a reasonable partner on D...he's not bad by himself - he's just not at that point where he can cover for other guys' dumbassery.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ie: still terrible when paired with warrener ?? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. It seems the results of our pool are completely goalie related. At least for me. I can have monster nights offense wise, but if both my goalies lose, I gain zero ground. On the other hand, 0 goals/assists but 2 shut-outs gains me a couple points typically.

    ReplyDelete
  5. WI: Well, I was trying not to name names...

    MG: I think the non goalie-stats are pretty much locked up. You're too far ahead with +/-, and I'm too far ahead for goals (and so on, for the other stats...) for any single night really to have an impact. I suck at goal though...Miller/Luongo/Biron are killing me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If anything you both are going to lose ground, you went through your games so quickly.

    Leanne only has the following games left at these positions:

    C: 13
    LW: 25
    RW: 28
    D: 91
    Util: 12

    MG has:

    C: 27
    LW: 38
    RW: 7
    D: 93
    Util: 15
    G: 54

    the Pant Weasels have:

    C: 51
    LW: 46
    RW: 39
    D: 87
    Util: 23
    G: 48

    You'll both run out of steam in short order, he's got a lot of games left.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ahh...

    my Plus/minus domination comes almost exclusively from the Lidstrom/Zetterberg/Holmstrom trio I snagged at the draft.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gee Dave, why'd you have to go and tell them!?! I was waiting until they suddenly realized that they weren't racking up any points and didn't know how... ; D

    I took a two week vacation to the Caribbean and just got back a little over a week ago. but I should hopefully be back to blogging again soon, once I've completely recovered. I need another vacation to recover from my vacation...

    Of course, my next vacation is only a few weeks from now. I'll be heading out to Calgary/ Edmonton with my brother to catch a few hockey games (we already have tickets for the Blues at both the Flames and Oilers, as well as for the Hitmen game against Lethbridge)...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hmmm...so I should be trading away my RWs then...

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm looking for some RW... :)

    ReplyDelete