This day on May 14
None

Happy Birthday To: feepa, g2k, Oilfan In UK, Dan86, swany, Oilers000, canoilers, lmaonade, ont_oil_fan81, I'm_Topher, cliffordbaker, headpins

F.A.Q. Terms of Use F.A.Q. F.A.Q.
Members Members   Search Search     Register Register   Login Login   Home Home
 Oilers » Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53)
Pages (2): [ «  <  1  2]
Switch to nested viewSwitch to tree viewCreate a new topicSubmit Reply
 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729808 is a reply to message #729803 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 07:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Oscargasm  is currently offline Oscargasm
Messages: 5748
Registered: May 2009
Location: YEG

5 Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 03:45

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 05 February 2019 22:00


I question the value of what the Oilers could sell. Like how many players do the Oilers have that could play on a playoff team? 5? 7?


Ooh, fun game.

1. McDavid
2. Draisaitl
3. Nugent-Hopkins
4. Klefbom
5. Larsson
6. Nurse

Russell? Kassian? Chiasson? Benning? Khaira? Do any of those guys make it?


I’d argue Lucic would be the 7th. Let’s face it. He’s built for playoff hockey.



Survivor CHAMP S52 | S66
OG's #MUSTWIN Scale
Category 1 - Lightly Musty
Category 2 - Moderately Musty
Category 3 - Considerably Musty
Category 4 - Severely Musty
Category 5 - Incredibly Musty

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729809 is a reply to message #729789 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 07:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Oscargasm  is currently offline Oscargasm
Messages: 5748
Registered: May 2009
Location: YEG

5 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Tue, 05 February 2019 23:36

It's the swarm without the swarm. Just doing...nothing instead.


Ryan Rishaug @TSNRyanRishaug
Puck watching at its absolute finest. Caggiula wide open.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DysfKSdU0AEICqK.jpg

What's the guy in front of the goalie even doing? His stick is not even in a place the puck could go. Basically just pretending to be a table hockey player that no one is controlling.


Simply. Stunning.

Trying to figure out who’s standing next to Nurse and can’t confidently figure it out. Is it Rattie? Russel is coming out the of the corner, where he made a play on 88, Lucic on the other side... Loo could have easily covered the Drake there but who’s the plug next to Nurse??



Survivor CHAMP S52 | S66
OG's #MUSTWIN Scale
Category 1 - Lightly Musty
Category 2 - Moderately Musty
Category 3 - Considerably Musty
Category 4 - Severely Musty
Category 5 - Incredibly Musty

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729812 is a reply to message #729789 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 08:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3790
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Tue, 05 February 2019 22:36

It's the swarm without the swarm. Just doing...nothing instead.


Ryan Rishaug @TSNRyanRishaug
Puck watching at its absolute finest. Caggiula wide open.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DysfKSdU0AEICqK.jpg

What's the guy in front of the goalie even doing? His stick is not even in a place the puck could go. Basically just pretending to be a table hockey player that no one is controlling.


This is a prime example of what is wrong with the Oilers. What are they doing?????

There is a guy behind the net so is stands to reason that someone would be in chase mode. So that is Russell. But what the hell is Rattie and Nurse doing? Rattie is just standing there watching the guy. WHY?? What are you accomplishing by freaking STANDING their watching. My oldest son is in novice hockey and that's what they do half the time is and and watch the puck carrier. They are 8, they are just learning the game. Rattie is 26. He's probably been playing hockey for over 20 years. What coach, or system or even common sense would tell you that it's a good idea to just STAND there and watch the guy. At least if he was lunging at him, it may not be the right play but he's not just standing there doing nothing.

Nurse is actually in the blue paint. WHY?? What defensive coverage says stand a foot from your goal line? The definition of a defenseman is to DEFEND the net. So shouldn't he be out DEFENDING??? If he is doing is job and DEFENDING the net, he'd be in front ready to tie up Caggulia and the play is dead. What is he doing???


I do not understand this team. They don't have enough talent to compete with the big boys, I know that but how are these supposed "pros" not able to play basics? How can these guys play good, defensive hockey for 2 periods then just STOP? It's like they turn their brain off and stop playing. Whatever they were doing for 2 periods was working, they go into the dressing room come out and just stop doing it. It's not even bad breaks or bounces or guys trying to hard, its flat out stupidity. Like not even doing fundamentals like tying up a guys stick, covering the guy in front of your net.

[Updated on: Wed, 06 February 2019 08:36]


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729813 is a reply to message #729812 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 08:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mightyreasoner  is currently offline mightyreasoner
Messages: 508
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 08:33

Kr55 wrote on Tue, 05 February 2019 22:36

It's the swarm without the swarm. Just doing...nothing instead.


Ryan Rishaug @TSNRyanRishaug
Puck watching at its absolute finest. Caggiula wide open.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DysfKSdU0AEICqK.jpg

What's the guy in front of the goalie even doing? His stick is not even in a place the puck could go. Basically just pretending to be a table hockey player that no one is controlling.


This is a prime example of what is wrong with the Oilers. What are they doing?????

There is a guy behind the net so is stands to reason that someone would be in chase mode. So that is Russell. But what the hell is Rattie and Nurse doing? Rattie is just standing there watching the guy. WHY?? What are you accomplishing by freaking STANDING their watching. My oldest son is in novice hockey and that's what they do half the time is and and watch the puck carrier. They are 8, they are just learning the game. Rattie is 26. He's probably been playing hockey for over 20 years. What coach, or system or even common sense would tell you that it's a good idea to just STAND there and watch the guy. At least if he was lunging at him, it may not be the right play but he's not just standing there doing nothing.

Nurse is actually in the blue paint. WHY?? What defensive coverage says stand a foot from your goal line? The definition of a defenseman is to DEFEND the net. So shouldn't he be out DEFENDING??? If he is doing is job and DEFENDING the net, he'd be in front ready to tie up Caggulia and the play is dead. What is he doing???


I do not understand this team. They don't have enough talent to compete with the big boys, I know that but how are these supposed "pros" not able to play basics? How can these guys play good, defensive hockey for 2 periods then just STOP? It's like they turn their brain off and stop playing. Whatever they were doing for 2 periods was working, they go into the dressing room come out and just stop doing it. It's not even bad breaks or bounces or guys trying to hard, its flat out stupidity. Like not even doing fundamentals like tying up a guys stick, covering the guy in front of your net.


Also, where is the center in this frame? Would that be McDavid? Did he go for a change? Did he get beat in the corner?

Rattie is probably where Nurse should be, McDavid should be on the puck carrier, and Rattie should be on his wing. Might be a case where everyone is out of position so no one really knows what they are doing and they are covering the empty spot.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729815 is a reply to message #729813 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 09:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3790
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 08:45

RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 08:33

Kr55 wrote on Tue, 05 February 2019 22:36

It's the swarm without the swarm. Just doing...nothing instead.


Ryan Rishaug @TSNRyanRishaug
Puck watching at its absolute finest. Caggiula wide open.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DysfKSdU0AEICqK.jpg

What's the guy in front of the goalie even doing? His stick is not even in a place the puck could go. Basically just pretending to be a table hockey player that no one is controlling.


This is a prime example of what is wrong with the Oilers. What are they doing?????

There is a guy behind the net so is stands to reason that someone would be in chase mode. So that is Russell. But what the hell is Rattie and Nurse doing? Rattie is just standing there watching the guy. WHY?? What are you accomplishing by freaking STANDING their watching. My oldest son is in novice hockey and that's what they do half the time is and and watch the puck carrier. They are 8, they are just learning the game. Rattie is 26. He's probably been playing hockey for over 20 years. What coach, or system or even common sense would tell you that it's a good idea to just STAND there and watch the guy. At least if he was lunging at him, it may not be the right play but he's not just standing there doing nothing.

Nurse is actually in the blue paint. WHY?? What defensive coverage says stand a foot from your goal line? The definition of a defenseman is to DEFEND the net. So shouldn't he be out DEFENDING??? If he is doing is job and DEFENDING the net, he'd be in front ready to tie up Caggulia and the play is dead. What is he doing???


I do not understand this team. They don't have enough talent to compete with the big boys, I know that but how are these supposed "pros" not able to play basics? How can these guys play good, defensive hockey for 2 periods then just STOP? It's like they turn their brain off and stop playing. Whatever they were doing for 2 periods was working, they go into the dressing room come out and just stop doing it. It's not even bad breaks or bounces or guys trying to hard, its flat out stupidity. Like not even doing fundamentals like tying up a guys stick, covering the guy in front of your net.


Also, where is the center in this frame? Would that be McDavid? Did he go for a change? Did he get beat in the corner?

Rattie is probably where Nurse should be, McDavid should be on the puck carrier, and Rattie should be on his wing. Might be a case where everyone is out of position so no one really knows what they are doing and they are covering the empty spot.


Good points. The center usually has WAY more defensive responsibilities than wingers. The center should be in the middle. WHERE is the CENTER?

Like I said, too compete with the big boys in the league, the Oilers don't have enough talent to play with them, they just don't. We have all seen some crappy Arizona teams with even less talent than the Oilers go out and beat good teams by playing sound, boring, defensive hockey. They play their position, keep it simple, do the basics. It may not be fun to watch but it works. But for the Oilers, basic fundamentals seems like an impossibility? Are some of these guys just flat out stupid? Like Nurse. I like Nurse a lot. He has 250 NHL games, been playing hockey probably since he was 5. Let's say he was confused with the defensive system and not sure of his position. So if that is the case, if you are unsure, wouldn't a normal person fall back to the basic default position that you have probably done since your were 5? Like go to the front of the net and tie someone up? I am not a pro hockey player or coach. I played when I was younger but not at a high level. I watch a TON of hockey. I have NEVER seen it where any team at any level just lets a guy stand in front of the goal all by himself while the dman just does nothing. At the very least, if all else fails, the dman tries to keep the front clear. Not for the Oilers.

[Updated on: Wed, 06 February 2019 09:09]


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729823 is a reply to message #729801 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 09:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mazankowski  is currently offline mazankowski
Messages: 27
Registered: June 2006
Location: Kelowna BC

No Cups

Honestly, the Nurse Russell pairing is having a difficult time. Nurse had an awful third period in particular. The 2-2 goal, he can clearly see that there's back pressure on the puck carrier with a pretty bad angle to the net, and yet he draws towards him rather than taking the only threat to score, being the man cross crease. This is simple simple hockey, stuff I teach my Minor Bantam's. If the puck carrier is going to drive the net, or shoot it, and he somehow scores, then that's on the goaltender. But this was flat out telegraphing the play to the puck carrier of what to do.

The Strome goal, my god, close the gap man. If Nurse steps up instead of back tracking, that puck is deflected or dumped into the corner and the transition from defence to offence is initiated. But no, he literally gets caught flat footed, screens the goaltender and knows there is only one place where the puck is going and that's to the house.

The goaltender interference play is a toss up. I see that the contact is initiated outside of the blue paint, but once the player comes into the crease with the goaltender, is that not when the goaltender interference begins to impede the goalie from getting across to try and make the save? The argument could be made there is no way in hell Talbot can shuffle from one side to the other in time. However, I counter that with the argument that could he have done the back roll in desperation to try and make the save or even tried to lunge? Bottom line, the goaltender was not allowed to attempt to make the save because a player was in the crease with a skate between his pad and his leg, decision done.

The Caggiula goal I had already gone to bed because I live in Toronto and it was about 11pm and I was hating myself for staying up. Until this D core including the down low forward (which usually is a C) can identify where the scoring areas are, and that plays starting from down low don't go any lower, but rather only come higher (points, slot, half wall), then there's no point in breaking down the play.

Rant over, the hockey IQ is a real issue and likely due to an overwhelming amount of minutes being fed to Russell and Nurse.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729825 is a reply to message #729823 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 09:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 6890
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

mazankowski wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 09:36

Honestly, the Nurse Russell pairing is having a difficult time. Nurse had an awful third period in particular. The 2-2 goal, he can clearly see that there's back pressure on the puck carrier with a pretty bad angle to the net, and yet he draws towards him rather than taking the only threat to score, being the man cross crease. This is simple simple hockey, stuff I teach my Minor Bantam's. If the puck carrier is going to drive the net, or shoot it, and he somehow scores, then that's on the goaltender. But this was flat out telegraphing the play to the puck carrier of what to do.

The Strome goal, my god, close the gap man. If Nurse steps up instead of back tracking, that puck is deflected or dumped into the corner and the transition from defence to offence is initiated. But no, he literally gets caught flat footed, screens the goaltender and knows there is only one place where the puck is going and that's to the house.

The goaltender interference play is a toss up. I see that the contact is initiated outside of the blue paint, but once the player comes into the crease with the goaltender, is that not when the goaltender interference begins to impede the goalie from getting across to try and make the save? The argument could be made there is no way in hell Talbot can shuffle from one side to the other in time. However, I counter that with the argument that could he have done the back roll in desperation to try and make the save or even tried to lunge? Bottom line, the goaltender was not allowed to attempt to make the save because a player was in the crease with a skate between his pad and his leg, decision done.

The Caggiula goal I had already gone to bed because I live in Toronto and it was about 11pm and I was hating myself for staying up. Until this D core including the down low forward (which usually is a C) can identify where the scoring areas are, and that plays starting from down low don't go any lower, but rather only come higher (points, slot, half wall), then there's no point in breaking down the play.

Rant over, the hockey IQ is a real issue and likely due to an overwhelming amount of minutes being fed to Russell and Nurse.


I ranted and raved at the start of the season and through in to the start of the Hitchcock era about overplaying a group of 7 or 8 guys. The Oilers have persisted in doing it, maybe because they have AHL-quality players in so much of the rest of the lineup, and it's caught up to them. I'd guess there's a fair amount of fatigue for all the top guys - and I think that's why we've seen even McDavid's numbers drop off a little bit.



"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireLowe #FireBobbyNicks #FireKenHolland #FireKeithGretzky

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729828 is a reply to message #729763 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 10:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rocksteady  is currently offline Rocksteady
Messages: 480
Registered: March 2007

No Cups

overdue wrote on Tue, 05 February 2019 21:52

Todd Mclellan is probably feeling pretty vindicated right about now. I feel sorry for Hitch. I think he really believed he could make this mess work and start winning again. Putting Lucic on McDavids wing is a big mistake though on his part. It's like playing with a handicap. Our only real hope playing with a handicap! What can you say? This team is crap!


But Lucic is on the cusp of getting out of this funk!! The experts says so!




The very definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing expecting different results.

Generally Disappointed.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729830 is a reply to message #729784 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 10:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rocksteady  is currently offline Rocksteady
Messages: 480
Registered: March 2007

No Cups

PlusOne wrote on Tue, 05 February 2019 22:21

There is a chance I am in Edmonton for work near the end of the season.
The way things are going I should be able to get a ticket for what, $15?

If the results are like tonight I am too cheap to toss my McDavid or Messier jersey on the ice. I might buy a Bobby Nicks Burger and save it for the third. You can bet that mofo will be sliding across the ice.

If I aim for the net there is a solid chance it goes in...


You wouldn't get my ticket for that price. You pay what I pay or I watch the ticket burn.



The very definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing expecting different results.

Generally Disappointed.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729831 is a reply to message #729823 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 10:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3790
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

mazankowski wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 09:36

Honestly, the Nurse Russell pairing is having a difficult time. Nurse had an awful third period in particular. The 2-2 goal, he can clearly see that there's back pressure on the puck carrier with a pretty bad angle to the net, and yet he draws towards him rather than taking the only threat to score, being the man cross crease. This is simple simple hockey, stuff I teach my Minor Bantam's. If the puck carrier is going to drive the net, or shoot it, and he somehow scores, then that's on the goaltender. But this was flat out telegraphing the play to the puck carrier of what to do.

The Strome goal, my god, close the gap man. If Nurse steps up instead of back tracking, that puck is deflected or dumped into the corner and the transition from defence to offence is initiated. But no, he literally gets caught flat footed, screens the goaltender and knows there is only one place where the puck is going and that's to the house.

The goaltender interference play is a toss up. I see that the contact is initiated outside of the blue paint, but once the player comes into the crease with the goaltender, is that not when the goaltender interference begins to impede the goalie from getting across to try and make the save? The argument could be made there is no way in hell Talbot can shuffle from one side to the other in time. However, I counter that with the argument that could he have done the back roll in desperation to try and make the save or even tried to lunge? Bottom line, the goaltender was not allowed to attempt to make the save because a player was in the crease with a skate between his pad and his leg, decision done.

The Caggiula goal I had already gone to bed because I live in Toronto and it was about 11pm and I was hating myself for staying up. Until this D core including the down low forward (which usually is a C) can identify where the scoring areas are, and that plays starting from down low don't go any lower, but rather only come higher (points, slot, half wall), then there's no point in breaking down the play.

Rant over, the hockey IQ is a real issue and likely due to an overwhelming amount of minutes being fed to Russell and Nurse.

I agree with you. The hockey IQ seems to be lacking. The mistakes they are making just seem like stuff you do when you are a kid. Sometimes guys make mistakes because they are trying too hard and are doing too much and they get out of position. I don't see that. The picture of the Caggulia goal. Everyone is just standing there doing nothing. No one is taking the man in front. Just a bunch of guys puck watching.

You described the Strome goal. What coach is EVER going to tell a defender. Give up the line, back way, way, way in and give hi all the time in the world to shoot.

I listen to Lowtide talk about the game. He says as always. "They don't have the horses". He's right. They don't have the horses to compete for a cup. BUT that is an excuse. They have the horses to be better than they were last night. Guys aren't doing their job. You don't need to be a norris trophy dman to go pick up a wide open man 10 ft from your goal. You don't need to be a norris trophy dman to not allow a forward to walk in unpressured and get a wide open shot. That crap is hockey basics.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729835 is a reply to message #729830 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 10:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi is currently online CrusaderPi
Messages: 7685
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

Rocksteady wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 10:10

PlusOne wrote on Tue, 05 February 2019 22:21

There is a chance I am in Edmonton for work near the end of the season.
The way things are going I should be able to get a ticket for what, $15?

If the results are like tonight I am too cheap to toss my McDavid or Messier jersey on the ice. I might buy a Bobby Nicks Burger and save it for the third. You can bet that mofo will be sliding across the ice.

If I aim for the net there is a solid chance it goes in...


You wouldn't get my ticket for that price. You pay what I pay or I watch the ticket burn.

Seem like sunk cost fallacy.

During the peak Eakins era I got tickets for $8.50 US, but that was in the old building. Tickets for the Arizona game on the 19th are already down to 27. $15 might be tough, but I think $20 CAD is doable.



Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729840 is a reply to message #729835 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 10:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 6890
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 10:17

Rocksteady wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 10:10

PlusOne wrote on Tue, 05 February 2019 22:21

There is a chance I am in Edmonton for work near the end of the season.
The way things are going I should be able to get a ticket for what, $15?

If the results are like tonight I am too cheap to toss my McDavid or Messier jersey on the ice. I might buy a Bobby Nicks Burger and save it for the third. You can bet that mofo will be sliding across the ice.

If I aim for the net there is a solid chance it goes in...


You wouldn't get my ticket for that price. You pay what I pay or I watch the ticket burn.

Seem like sunk cost fallacy.

During the peak Eakins era I got tickets for $8.50 US, but that was in the old building. Tickets for the Arizona game on the 19th are already down to 27. $15 might be tough, but I think $20 CAD is doable.


Predictions on the cheapest game of the year? I've got New Jersey on Wednesday March 13th or Columbus on Thursday March 21st. Weekday games against meh teams at a point when the playoffs won't be even a faint dream any more...not even the return of Taylor Hall will get people excited to come out...



"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireLowe #FireBobbyNicks #FireKenHolland #FireKeithGretzky

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729841 is a reply to message #729825 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 10:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3790
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Adam wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 09:59

mazankowski wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 09:36

Honestly, the Nurse Russell pairing is having a difficult time. Nurse had an awful third period in particular. The 2-2 goal, he can clearly see that there's back pressure on the puck carrier with a pretty bad angle to the net, and yet he draws towards him rather than taking the only threat to score, being the man cross crease. This is simple simple hockey, stuff I teach my Minor Bantam's. If the puck carrier is going to drive the net, or shoot it, and he somehow scores, then that's on the goaltender. But this was flat out telegraphing the play to the puck carrier of what to do.

The Strome goal, my god, close the gap man. If Nurse steps up instead of back tracking, that puck is deflected or dumped into the corner and the transition from defence to offence is initiated. But no, he literally gets caught flat footed, screens the goaltender and knows there is only one place where the puck is going and that's to the house.

The goaltender interference play is a toss up. I see that the contact is initiated outside of the blue paint, but once the player comes into the crease with the goaltender, is that not when the goaltender interference begins to impede the goalie from getting across to try and make the save? The argument could be made there is no way in hell Talbot can shuffle from one side to the other in time. However, I counter that with the argument that could he have done the back roll in desperation to try and make the save or even tried to lunge? Bottom line, the goaltender was not allowed to attempt to make the save because a player was in the crease with a skate between his pad and his leg, decision done.

The Caggiula goal I had already gone to bed because I live in Toronto and it was about 11pm and I was hating myself for staying up. Until this D core including the down low forward (which usually is a C) can identify where the scoring areas are, and that plays starting from down low don't go any lower, but rather only come higher (points, slot, half wall), then there's no point in breaking down the play.

Rant over, the hockey IQ is a real issue and likely due to an overwhelming amount of minutes being fed to Russell and Nurse.


I ranted and raved at the start of the season and through in to the start of the Hitchcock era about overplaying a group of 7 or 8 guys. The Oilers have persisted in doing it, maybe because they have AHL-quality players in so much of the rest of the lineup, and it's caught up to them. I'd guess there's a fair amount of fatigue for all the top guys - and I think that's why we've seen even McDavid's numbers drop off a little bit.


Even if you are an AHLer, you should know not to leave a guy wide open in front. You shouldn't have to be a hall of famer to figure that out.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729845 is a reply to message #729815 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 10:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
overdue  is currently offline overdue
Messages: 493
Registered: October 2014

No Cups

The Cagulla goal was hard to take because it was Cagulla and because it was such a blatant defensive melt down. More salt on the wound. That type of play where the shooter is left wide open has happened on many goals against this season. Looked to me like Lucic being Lucic was too slow to get to Cagulla and Nurse was anticipating Taves coming around the back of the net with the puck.( he guessed wrong ) What Rattie was doing, flat footed in front of the net with his back to the shooter. at the same time interfering with the goalie, was a total brain cramp on his part. It's just more of the same. They fall apart under pressure in their own zone and forget to look for the open man coming in behind the play, hypnotized by the puck carrier.

[Updated on: Wed, 06 February 2019 10:33]


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729846 is a reply to message #729835 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 10:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mightyreasoner  is currently offline mightyreasoner
Messages: 508
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 10:17

Rocksteady wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 10:10

PlusOne wrote on Tue, 05 February 2019 22:21

There is a chance I am in Edmonton for work near the end of the season.
The way things are going I should be able to get a ticket for what, $15?

If the results are like tonight I am too cheap to toss my McDavid or Messier jersey on the ice. I might buy a Bobby Nicks Burger and save it for the third. You can bet that mofo will be sliding across the ice.

If I aim for the net there is a solid chance it goes in...


You wouldn't get my ticket for that price. You pay what I pay or I watch the ticket burn.

Seem like sunk cost fallacy.

During the peak Eakins era I got tickets for $8.50 US, but that was in the old building. Tickets for the Arizona game on the 19th are already down to 27. $15 might be tough, but I think $20 CAD is doable.


Mid-January, before the wheels fell entirely off, upper bowl tickets were between $30-$40 resale on Ticketmaster. I got the Buffalo game for $35 all in, fees and everything.

I haven't had much desire to go to a game the past few weeks, so I haven't looked. It wouldn't surprise me if it is $25-$30.

Seems to be the true market value of the Oilers tickets. I fully understand why season ticket holders list as they do and don't want to sell or take a loss, but I just don't think the demand for Oilers tickets is strong these days. They are probably worth less than what season ticket holders paid, and are certainly worth less than the face value Ticketmaster sold them for at the beginning of the year.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53) [message #729859 is a reply to message #729846 ]
Wed, 06 February 2019 13:06 Go to previous message
NetBOG  is currently offline NetBOG
Messages: 2894
Registered: January 2006
Location: Parts Unknown

2 Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 10:30

CrusaderPi wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 10:17

Rocksteady wrote on Wed, 06 February 2019 10:10

PlusOne wrote on Tue, 05 February 2019 22:21

There is a chance I am in Edmonton for work near the end of the season.
The way things are going I should be able to get a ticket for what, $15?

If the results are like tonight I am too cheap to toss my McDavid or Messier jersey on the ice. I might buy a Bobby Nicks Burger and save it for the third. You can bet that mofo will be sliding across the ice.

If I aim for the net there is a solid chance it goes in...


You wouldn't get my ticket for that price. You pay what I pay or I watch the ticket burn.

Seem like sunk cost fallacy.

During the peak Eakins era I got tickets for $8.50 US, but that was in the old building. Tickets for the Arizona game on the 19th are already down to 27. $15 might be tough, but I think $20 CAD is doable.


Mid-January, before the wheels fell entirely off, upper bowl tickets were between $30-$40 resale on Ticketmaster. I got the Buffalo game for $35 all in, fees and everything.

I haven't had much desire to go to a game the past few weeks, so I haven't looked. It wouldn't surprise me if it is $25-$30.

Seems to be the true market value of the Oilers tickets. I fully understand why season ticket holders list as they do and don't want to sell or take a loss, but I just don't think the demand for Oilers tickets is strong these days. They are probably worth less than what season ticket holders paid, and are certainly worth less than the face value Ticketmaster sold them for at the beginning of the year.


Mid-week, late season, out of the playoffs games should be worth way less than the price a season ticket holder pays for them. The real value to season ticket holders are the 10-12 super-premium games a year that have FAR MORE value than a season ticket holder pays for them. Plus the guarantee of playoff tickets (cue Jim Mora Sr.) is also a premium that is included in season tickets.



Send a private message to this user  

Pages (2): [ «  <  1  2]  
Previous Topic:Pregame: Edmonton @ Minnesota (Game #54)
Next Topic:Pregame: Chicago @ Edmonton (Game #53)
Oilers NHL Minors Speculation For Sale 


Copyright © OilFans.com 1996-2022.
All content is property of OilFans.com and cannot be used without expressed, written consent from this site.
Questions, comments and suggestions can be directed to oilfans@OilFans.com
Privacy Statement


Hosted by LogicalHosting.ca