GDT: Flames @ Sens - Sunday, Mar 8th 7:00pm, City

wprager wrote:Anderson was great first two periods.  The whole team wen to sleep in the third.  With the switch to DST you'd think they'd be awful in the first.

24 shots in a period is pretty awful, but Andy also has to make one or two of those saves.  20 of 24 is .833.  22/24 is .917 and a regulation 4-2 win (or even 5-2 with an empty netter).

24 shots is more than a shot per minute. And a lot of those were quality shots where Anderson DID make the saves. Any normal person would have collapsed into a pile of goo under those circumstances.

A win is a win at this point and giving up that point to a team from the West is no big deal.

Glad to see the Gregger finally has someone around to stand up for him.

All kidding aside it is concerning that the team played lights out during this stretch and then Anderson goes in and they can't string together a 60 minute effort.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:All kidding aside it is concerning that the team played lights out during this stretch and then Anderson goes in and they can't string together a 60 minute effort.

I'm not sure it was effort as much as a ill-advised strategy ie. sitting back and trying to protect the zone. There was a great overhead shot of Ottawa lined up 4 across at their own blue line while Calgary was still in their half of the ice get set to attack. A team with speed can just chip it past that formation and get possession fairly easily.

Okay, for the sake of accuracy, Let me change that to - they can't stick to a game plan for a full 60 minutes.

That was so ugly.

Anderson was fantastic in the 3rd, the Sens went to sleep on him. Literally none of those goals were his fault and 3 of the 4 probably couldn't be stopped. Anderson should get the start against Boston.

wprager wrote:Anderson was great first two periods.  The whole team wen to sleep in the third.  With the switch to DST you'd think they'd be awful in the first.

24 shots in a period is pretty awful, but Andy also has to make one or two of those saves.  20 of 24 is .833.  22/24 is .917 and a regulation 4-2 win (or even 5-2 with an empty netter).

Is this a serious post?

The series where Anderson had 5 or 6 huge saves in one sequence was spectacular. That was he turning point though. The Sens needed to wake up at tht exag point and they didn't.

wprager wrote:Anderson was great first two periods.  The whole team wen to sleep in the third.  With the switch to DST you'd think they'd be awful in the first.

24 shots in a period is pretty awful, but Andy also has to make one or two of those saves.  20 of 24 is .833.  22/24 is .917 and a regulation 4-2 win (or even 5-2 with an empty netter).

Man...if Anderson faces 3 shots in 3 seconds and lets the last one in, giving him a save percentage of .666 does that make him unfit to be a professional goalie? I find it sometimes helps to look beyond the stats...I'm an old soul like that.

Vandelay wrote:

wprager wrote:Anderson was great first two periods.  The whole team wen to sleep in the third.  With the switch to DST you'd think they'd be awful in the first.

24 shots in a period is pretty awful, but Andy also has to make one or two of those saves.  20 of 24 is .833.  22/24 is .917 and a regulation 4-2 win (or even 5-2 with an empty netter).

Man...if Anderson faces 3 shots in 3 seconds and lets the last one in, giving him a save percentage of .666 does that make him unfit to be a professional goalie?  I find it sometimes helps to look beyond the stats...I'm an old soul like that.

Welcome to the club, old friend.

SpezDispensed wrote:The series where Anderson had 5 or 6 huge saves in one sequence was spectacular.  That was he turning point though.  The Sens needed to wake up at tht exag point and they didn't.

I think the turning point was that huge save he made in the first when that Flames idiot had the breakaway and tried to go between his own legs.

NEELY wrote:

wprager wrote:Anderson was great first two periods.  The whole team wen to sleep in the third.  With the switch to DST you'd think they'd be awful in the first.

24 shots in a period is pretty awful, but Andy also has to make one or two of those saves.  20 of 24 is .833.  22/24 is .917 and a regulation 4-2 win (or even 5-2 with an empty netter).

Is this a serious post?

Why? I'm not allowed to have an opinion? Some of those were stoppable. I was especially upset (not just at Andy) about the 4th goal. Karlsson gave up the puck because in traffic he tried to do something fancy, then he skates back to the crease and doesn't pick anyone up and probably skated right in front of Anderson; but Anderson looked like he just stood there and barely waved his glove at the puck.

24 is a lot of shots in one period so I can't hang all of this on Anderson but, Christ, you give your goalie a 4-0 lead he needs to make some saves. It snowballed.

It was not Anderson's fault, Hammond would have probably let double in.

LeCaptain wrote:It was not Anderson's fault, Hammond would have probably let double in.

How dare you?!!!

LeCaptain wrote:It was not Anderson's fault, Hammond would have probably let double in.

Team played better for Hammond. Even when he had a so-so game against Buffalo (especially that 2nd goal) they rallied and came back.

It's almost like the expectation(with Anderson) was that 4-0, we've done our job and fully expect you to finish up. But with Hammond, because of his inexperience they were playing more desperate hockey.

Also playing on the road vs. at home.

wprager wrote:

LeCaptain wrote:It was not Anderson's fault, Hammond would have probably let double in.

Team played better for Hammond.  Even when he had a so-so game against Buffalo (especially that 2nd goal) they rallied and came back.

It's almost like the expectation(with Anderson) was that 4-0, we've done our job and fully expect you to finish up.  But with Hammond, because of his inexperience they were playing more desperate hockey.

Also playing on the road vs. at home.  

They were up 4-0 and they were already looking ahead to the Boston game. It would have been the same if Hammond was in net.

The odds of losing when up 4-0 are astronomically low. It's just human nature to stop trying especially when you are thinking about the next game against a rival

That needs to be a lesson learned though. Human nature is one thing, but when you're a team that's only 'good' at this point in your ascension, you need to be focusing on every shift. Especially if you're a young player, there's really no excuse.

Shake that one off, but hopefully take something from it. And both teams are equally guilty of it - both young teams too - coincidence?