This day on April 19
None

Happy Birthday To: jari17, trehorse, 5mowill, smyth2007

F.A.Q. Terms of Use F.A.Q. F.A.Q.
Members Members   Search Search     Register Register   Login Login   Home Home
 Oilers » So how much longer do we give Krueger?Pages (3): [ «  <  1  2  3  >  »]
Switch to flat viewSwitch to tree viewCreate a new topicSubmit Reply
 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591318 is a reply to message #590997 ]
Tue, 05 March 2013 19:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
TJ39  is currently offline TJ39
Messages: 1478
Registered: May 2002
Location: British Columbia

1 Cup

It's not up to us or else the coach and all working above him would be long gone.

I will rejoice the day it happens to all of them, if it ever happens.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591323 is a reply to message #591318 ]
Tue, 05 March 2013 19:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ragnarok73  is currently offline Ragnarok73
Messages: 2487
Registered: February 2011

2 Cups

TJ39 wrote on Tue, 05 March 2013 19:55

It's not up to us or else the coach and all working above him would be long gone.

I will rejoice the day it happens to all of them, if it ever happens.

I think part of the problem is that expectations for this team were very low going into the season, so it's not like the coaching/management team have to achieve much to keep their jobs. I'd like to think that Lowe is seething after tonight's showing against the dead-last-place team in the NHL, but I just don't know.



"Life is warfare and the sojourn of a stranger in a strange land." - Marcus Aurelius

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591431 is a reply to message #591323 ]
Wed, 06 March 2013 14:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rukm01  is currently offline rukm01
Messages: 2059
Registered: December 2004
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

Ragnarok73 wrote on Tue, 05 March 2013 19:59

TJ39 wrote on Tue, 05 March 2013 19:55

It's not up to us or else the coach and all working above him would be long gone.

I will rejoice the day it happens to all of them, if it ever happens.

I think part of the problem is that expectations for this team were very low going into the season, so it's not like the coaching/management team have to achieve much to keep their jobs. I'd like to think that Lowe is seething after tonight's showing against the dead-last-place team in the NHL, but I just don't know.


Expectations were actually pretty high going into the season. Somebody at SI picked them to finish, what, third? Yes it was scoffed at, but lots of media types picked them to make the playoffs. Adding Yakupov and Schultz, who had a phenomenal start in the AHL... the kids were supposed to have a step on everybody because they were in mid-season form...

Ah, warm memories.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591432 is a reply to message #591431 ]
Wed, 06 March 2013 14:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ragnarok73  is currently offline Ragnarok73
Messages: 2487
Registered: February 2011

2 Cups

rukm01 wrote on Wed, 06 March 2013 14:23

Ragnarok73 wrote on Tue, 05 March 2013 19:59

TJ39 wrote on Tue, 05 March 2013 19:55

It's not up to us or else the coach and all working above him would be long gone.

I will rejoice the day it happens to all of them, if it ever happens.

I think part of the problem is that expectations for this team were very low going into the season, so it's not like the coaching/management team have to achieve much to keep their jobs. I'd like to think that Lowe is seething after tonight's showing against the dead-last-place team in the NHL, but I just don't know.


Expectations were actually pretty high going into the season. Somebody at SI picked them to finish, what, third? Yes it was scoffed at, but lots of media types picked them to make the playoffs. Adding Yakupov and Schultz, who had a phenomenal start in the AHL... the kids were supposed to have a step on everybody because they were in mid-season form...

Ah, warm memories.

Most *knowledgeable* publications, like The Hockey News, predicted another non-playoff year for the Oil, though they said that team would likely avoid finishing at or near the bottom again.



"Life is warfare and the sojourn of a stranger in a strange land." - Marcus Aurelius

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591434 is a reply to message #591431 ]
Wed, 06 March 2013 14:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BleedOil  is currently offline BleedOil
Messages: 894
Registered: May 2002
Location: Regina

No Cups

rukm01 wrote on Wed, 06 March 2013 15:23

Ragnarok73 wrote on Tue, 05 March 2013 19:59

TJ39 wrote on Tue, 05 March 2013 19:55

It's not up to us or else the coach and all working above him would be long gone.

I will rejoice the day it happens to all of them, if it ever happens.

I think part of the problem is that expectations for this team were very low going into the season, so it's not like the coaching/management team have to achieve much to keep their jobs. I'd like to think that Lowe is seething after tonight's showing against the dead-last-place team in the NHL, but I just don't know.


Expectations were actually pretty high going into the season. Somebody at SI picked them to finish, what, third? Yes it was scoffed at, but lots of media types picked them to make the playoffs. Adding Yakupov and Schultz, who had a phenomenal start in the AHL... the kids were supposed to have a step on everybody because they were in mid-season form...

Ah, warm memories.


SI had them listed 3rd in the Power Rankings to start the season due to having so many guys that were already playing, not to finish 3rd overall.

Of course, as most things go, too many people (especially other media) get it completely wrong and it becomes what it isn't.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nhl/news/20130109/nhl-prese ason-power-rankings/?sct=uk_t11_a6

Quote:

If these preseason rankings had come out in October, teams would have occupied different spots than you see here. The shortened season means they must be viewed through an entirely different prism, one that is more short-term. The old hockey saying used to be that the season didn't really start until January anyway, when the really good teams get serious for the playoff push. Well, it's January, before Game 1. So will the veteran, battle-tested rosters actually fare better because their attention will be piqued on opening day by the knowledge that they have little margin for slumps? Or will the younger teams with more energy and vigor be better in a sprint instead of the usual marathon? We'll find out, but for now these are my first projections for the lockout-shortened season:

Edmonton Oilers (32-40-10)
Check with me in a month or two, but it says here that they will get off to a great start -- which really ups the odds of getting into the playoffs. Why the reason for Oil optimism? Because Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Taylor Hall, Jordan Eberle and newcomer D-man Justin Schultz all played regularly during the lockout in the AHL and will be that much further along than the players who were limited to informal skates or shinny matches for charity. Eberle had 51 points in 34 games for Oklahoma City, while Schultz had 48 in 34. Granted, big questions remain in goal and defense, but what an offense this should be.



"One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane"
--- Nikola Tesla

People who have responsibility without rights are slaves. People who have rights without responsibility are leeches.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591427 is a reply to message #590997 ]
Wed, 06 March 2013 14:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ragnarok73  is currently offline Ragnarok73
Messages: 2487
Registered: February 2011

2 Cups

So on CHED, Stauffer said that Krueger will be Coach of the Year in the next two years. His credibility is pretty much non-existent, isn't it?

crazy



"Life is warfare and the sojourn of a stranger in a strange land." - Marcus Aurelius

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591428 is a reply to message #591427 ]
Wed, 06 March 2013 14:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
nullterm  is currently offline nullterm
Messages: 7479
Registered: July 2007
Location: Port Moody, BC

6 Cups

Ragnarok73 wrote on Wed, 06 March 2013 13:04

So on CHED, Stauffer said that Krueger will be Coach of the Year in the next two years. His credibility is pretty much non-existent, isn't it?

crazy


People still listen to Stauffer? He sold off his credibility when he went to work for the Oilers/CHED. Katz made a great move silencing his greatest critic.

I like Bob, but at this point he's more PR.



Illegitimi non carborundum.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591435 is a reply to message #591428 ]
Wed, 06 March 2013 16:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Regulator  is currently offline Regulator
Messages: 1405
Registered: April 2007

1 Cup

nullterm wrote on Wed, 06 March 2013 14:06

Ragnarok73 wrote on Wed, 06 March 2013 13:04

So on CHED, Stauffer said that Krueger will be Coach of the Year in the next two years. His credibility is pretty much non-existent, isn't it?

crazy


People still listen to Stauffer? He sold off his credibility when he went to work for the Oilers/CHED. Katz made a great move silencing his greatest critic.

I like Bob, but at this point he's more PR.


The amount of excuses he had for the Oilers during the lunch hour show was incredible, it was like he stayed up all night thinking of every possible excuse as to why this team has been a bottom 5 team in the league for 4/5 years and counting...........it really is laughable



dkb19 wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 13:05 (re: Horcoff)

He's like a mastercard comercial, alot of what he does is priceless.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591437 is a reply to message #590997 ]
Wed, 06 March 2013 16:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dr. Oil  is currently offline Dr. Oil
Messages: 2136
Registered: June 2003
Location: BC

2 Cups

While I don't think the blame falls on Krueger's shoulders 100%, I don't think anyone can look at the Oilers and call them a well coached team at this point. He may not have a superb, balanced roster to work with, but teams with far fewer household names are able to achieve respectability through structure, line matching, hard work and commitment to the system. None of the above are demonstrated by the Oilers consistently. The problem is, the same things have been lacking for many years now. It's baffling how the Lowe regime just doesn't die.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591439 is a reply to message #591437 ]
Wed, 06 March 2013 16:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 3587
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

3 Cups

All I can really say about how the oilers play lately from the coaching side of things is that they do appear to be motivated but, they're motivated to do the wrong things.

Just for the sake of a fun super extreme analogy, it's like if you got a guy super hyped and foaming at the mouth to play a game, but told him he has to skate backwards all night long. Maybe he would look like he's working his butt off with all that backward skating, but he would be a useless tit the entire night icon_wink

Plain and simple, more often than not, we look like a team playing stupid hockey.

Maybe we would be better off if Krueger coached a very defensive style. Pretty sure oiler fans could handle their team playing boring. Even if they say they don't, the seats will stay sold out. Nothing is more boring than seeing your team out thought outmaneuvered and outshot every night.

[Updated on: Wed, 06 March 2013 16:57]


..talk is cheap
..success is coming
..the game that we present and stage for the fans most nights is one of very, very high entertainment
..limitless potential
..good structural improvement

Eakins: I know EXACTLY what we need to do next year...

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591449 is a reply to message #590997 ]
Wed, 06 March 2013 20:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
KenMoreira  is currently offline KenMoreira
Messages: 329
Registered: March 2010
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

Probably gonna get flamed lol.
But Tambo has done his job to a TEA.
The whole point has been to suck, to rebuild. we're 4th year into getting high picks on purpose sucks yes, but How many top 10s did pens dive to get, or the hawks? I'm perfectly fine with taking seth jones lol. And i'd give him and klefbom a season as a write off. So 2 more years, THEN fire Tambo. and higher a gm that has rings.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591450 is a reply to message #591449 ]
Wed, 06 March 2013 20:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
nullterm  is currently offline nullterm
Messages: 7479
Registered: July 2007
Location: Port Moody, BC

6 Cups

KenMoreira wrote on Wed, 06 March 2013 19:09

Probably gonna get flamed lol.
But Tambo has done his job to a TEA.
The whole point has been to suck, to rebuild. we're 4th year into getting high picks on purpose sucks yes, but How many top 10s did pens dive to get, or the hawks? I'm perfectly fine with taking seth jones lol. And i'd give him and klefbom a season as a write off. So 2 more years, THEN fire Tambo. and higher a gm that has rings.


No. Just no.

This team needs to start winning or it never will.



Illegitimi non carborundum.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591452 is a reply to message #591449 ]
Wed, 06 March 2013 20:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ragnarok73  is currently offline Ragnarok73
Messages: 2487
Registered: February 2011

2 Cups

KenMoreira wrote on Wed, 06 March 2013 20:09

Probably gonna get flamed lol.
But Tambo has done his job to a TEA.
The whole point has been to suck, to rebuild. we're 4th year into getting high picks on purpose sucks yes, but How many top 10s did pens dive to get, or the hawks? I'm perfectly fine with taking seth jones lol. And i'd give him and klefbom a season as a write off. So 2 more years, THEN fire Tambo. and higher a gm that has rings.

Spelling mistakes aside, this post made me do a little research on the periods for both the Pens and Hawks from when they first missed the playoffs to when they won their recent Cup championships. The Pens took 7 years to get their last Cup ring, while the Hawks took around 8 years.

This has helped me to put things into perspective a bit. However, keep in mind that while those teams did take quite a few years to build up to be championship-caliber, both of them also did not reach those heights with the same GM's and coaches that they started the rebuild with. I also still believe that the right coach and GM could make the rebuild process take less time than 7-8 years.

I had low expectations going into this season, but it still hasn't made watching them play poorly and lose any easier to stomach.



"Life is warfare and the sojourn of a stranger in a strange land." - Marcus Aurelius

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591472 is a reply to message #591452 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 09:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BleedOil  is currently offline BleedOil
Messages: 894
Registered: May 2002
Location: Regina

No Cups

Ragnarok73 wrote on Wed, 06 March 2013 21:33

KenMoreira wrote on Wed, 06 March 2013 20:09

Probably gonna get flamed lol.
But Tambo has done his job to a TEA.
The whole point has been to suck, to rebuild. we're 4th year into getting high picks on purpose sucks yes, but How many top 10s did pens dive to get, or the hawks? I'm perfectly fine with taking seth jones lol. And i'd give him and klefbom a season as a write off. So 2 more years, THEN fire Tambo. and higher a gm that has rings.

Spelling mistakes aside, this post made me do a little research on the periods for both the Pens and Hawks from when they first missed the playoffs to when they won their recent Cup championships. The Pens took 7 years to get their last Cup ring, while the Hawks took around 8 years.

This has helped me to put things into perspective a bit. However, keep in mind that while those teams did take quite a few years to build up to be championship-caliber, both of them also did not reach those heights with the same GM's and coaches that they started the rebuild with. I also still believe that the right coach and GM could make the rebuild process take less time than 7-8 years.

I had low expectations going into this season, but it still hasn't made watching them play poorly and lose any easier to stomach.


I had looked at both Pit and Chi last year to see when and how quickly they improved.

It can be argued when each team started a rebuild, but this is just a quick commentary on each. I consider the bad year they had that resulted in the first franchise type pick as year one.

Penguins had 69 points in 01-02 and drafted Ryan Whitney in the 1st round, but IMO, the rebuild started the next season. They dropped to 65 points and drafted Fleury in 03. Malkin in 04. Crosby in 05 - the lockout draft. Staal in 06. After 58 points in each of 03-04 and 05-06, they jumped to seasons of 105, 102 and 99 points in the year they won the Cup.

Took them 4 high draft picks, but 3 bad seasons, before becoming competitive.

Chicago had started drafting pieces in 02 (Keith), 03 (Seabrook), but picked Barker in 04 and Skille in 05. Had 59 points in 03-04, 65 in 05-06 - and drafted Toews - IMO, when the rebuild really started. Had 71 points the next season, and drafted Kane. Then jumped to 88 in 07-08, 104 in 08-09 and 112 in 09-10 - the Cup year.

Pittsburgh went from terrible to great in year 4. Jumped from 58 points to 105 in year 4. Chicago jumped from 71 to 88 points in year 3, then to 104 in year 4.

And, again, you can argue when the rebuild began, and you can argue other pieces were in place just before the rebuild. In general, in looks like year 4 is when these two teams showed to be very competitive.

For the Oilers, they had already drafted/had on the roster, players like Eberle, Gagner, Hemsky and Dubnyk before the rebuild. Adding 1st overall picks Hall, RNH and Yakupov, plus Schultz - they really should be showing improvement this season as I would argue the POTENTIAL depth of talented players is more than what either Pitt or Chi had. Of course, the Oilers don't have the top end talent that either team had/has in Crosby/Malkin or Toews/Kane. although they should reach the Toews/Kane level.

[Updated on: Thu, 07 March 2013 09:26]


"One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane"
--- Nikola Tesla

People who have responsibility without rights are slaves. People who have rights without responsibility are leeches.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591494 is a reply to message #591472 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 11:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mars  is currently offline Mars
Messages: 731
Registered: February 2013
Location: Rockies

No Cups

BleedOil wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 09:18

Ragnarok73 wrote on Wed, 06 March 2013 21:33

KenMoreira wrote on Wed, 06 March 2013 20:09

Probably gonna get flamed lol.
But Tambo has done his job to a TEA.
The whole point has been to suck, to rebuild. we're 4th year into getting high picks on purpose sucks yes, but How many top 10s did pens dive to get, or the hawks? I'm perfectly fine with taking seth jones lol. And i'd give him and klefbom a season as a write off. So 2 more years, THEN fire Tambo. and higher a gm that has rings.

Spelling mistakes aside, this post made me do a little research on the periods for both the Pens and Hawks from when they first missed the playoffs to when they won their recent Cup championships. The Pens took 7 years to get their last Cup ring, while the Hawks took around 8 years.

This has helped me to put things into perspective a bit. However, keep in mind that while those teams did take quite a few years to build up to be championship-caliber, both of them also did not reach those heights with the same GM's and coaches that they started the rebuild with. I also still believe that the right coach and GM could make the rebuild process take less time than 7-8 years.

I had low expectations going into this season, but it still hasn't made watching them play poorly and lose any easier to stomach.


I had looked at both Pit and Chi last year to see when and how quickly they improved.

It can be argued when each team started a rebuild, but this is just a quick commentary on each. I consider the bad year they had that resulted in the first franchise type pick as year one.

Penguins had 69 points in 01-02 and drafted Ryan Whitney in the 1st round, but IMO, the rebuild started the next season. They dropped to 65 points and drafted Fleury in 03. Malkin in 04. Crosby in 05 - the lockout draft. Staal in 06. After 58 points in each of 03-04 and 05-06, they jumped to seasons of 105, 102 and 99 points in the year they won the Cup.

Took them 4 high draft picks, but 3 bad seasons, before becoming competitive.

Chicago had started drafting pieces in 02 (Keith), 03 (Seabrook), but picked Barker in 04 and Skille in 05. Had 59 points in 03-04, 65 in 05-06 - and drafted Toews - IMO, when the rebuild really started. Had 71 points the next season, and drafted Kane. Then jumped to 88 in 07-08, 104 in 08-09 and 112 in 09-10 - the Cup year.

Pittsburgh went from terrible to great in year 4. Jumped from 58 points to 105 in year 4. Chicago jumped from 71 to 88 points in year 3, then to 104 in year 4.

And, again, you can argue when the rebuild began, and you can argue other pieces were in place just before the rebuild. In general, in looks like year 4 is when these two teams showed to be very competitive.

For the Oilers, they had already drafted/had on the roster, players like Eberle, Gagner, Hemsky and Dubnyk before the rebuild. Adding 1st overall picks Hall, RNH and Yakupov, plus Schultz - they really should be showing improvement this season as I would argue the POTENTIAL depth of talented players is more than what either Pitt or Chi had. Of course, the Oilers don't have the top end talent that either team had/has in Crosby/Malkin or Toews/Kane. although they should reach the Toews/Kane level.



Great posts to add some perspective. For me, if the Oilers aren't serious contenders in the West next season (not saying they have to be 1st or 2nd) I'll be very, very concerned.

Next season will be Gagner's 7th, Eberle's 4th, Hall's 4th and RNH's 3rd.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591495 is a reply to message #591494 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 11:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Magnum  is currently offline Magnum
Messages: 4345
Registered: June 2009
Location: In a Prism of Frustration

4 Cups

Mars wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 11:14

BleedOil wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 09:18

Ragnarok73 wrote on Wed, 06 March 2013 21:33

KenMoreira wrote on Wed, 06 March 2013 20:09

Probably gonna get flamed lol.
But Tambo has done his job to a TEA.
The whole point has been to suck, to rebuild. we're 4th year into getting high picks on purpose sucks yes, but How many top 10s did pens dive to get, or the hawks? I'm perfectly fine with taking seth jones lol. And i'd give him and klefbom a season as a write off. So 2 more years, THEN fire Tambo. and higher a gm that has rings.

Spelling mistakes aside, this post made me do a little research on the periods for both the Pens and Hawks from when they first missed the playoffs to when they won their recent Cup championships. The Pens took 7 years to get their last Cup ring, while the Hawks took around 8 years.

This has helped me to put things into perspective a bit. However, keep in mind that while those teams did take quite a few years to build up to be championship-caliber, both of them also did not reach those heights with the same GM's and coaches that they started the rebuild with. I also still believe that the right coach and GM could make the rebuild process take less time than 7-8 years.

I had low expectations going into this season, but it still hasn't made watching them play poorly and lose any easier to stomach.


I had looked at both Pit and Chi last year to see when and how quickly they improved.

It can be argued when each team started a rebuild, but this is just a quick commentary on each. I consider the bad year they had that resulted in the first franchise type pick as year one.

Penguins had 69 points in 01-02 and drafted Ryan Whitney in the 1st round, but IMO, the rebuild started the next season. They dropped to 65 points and drafted Fleury in 03. Malkin in 04. Crosby in 05 - the lockout draft. Staal in 06. After 58 points in each of 03-04 and 05-06, they jumped to seasons of 105, 102 and 99 points in the year they won the Cup.

Took them 4 high draft picks, but 3 bad seasons, before becoming competitive.

Chicago had started drafting pieces in 02 (Keith), 03 (Seabrook), but picked Barker in 04 and Skille in 05. Had 59 points in 03-04, 65 in 05-06 - and drafted Toews - IMO, when the rebuild really started. Had 71 points the next season, and drafted Kane. Then jumped to 88 in 07-08, 104 in 08-09 and 112 in 09-10 - the Cup year.

Pittsburgh went from terrible to great in year 4. Jumped from 58 points to 105 in year 4. Chicago jumped from 71 to 88 points in year 3, then to 104 in year 4.

And, again, you can argue when the rebuild began, and you can argue other pieces were in place just before the rebuild. In general, in looks like year 4 is when these two teams showed to be very competitive.

For the Oilers, they had already drafted/had on the roster, players like Eberle, Gagner, Hemsky and Dubnyk before the rebuild. Adding 1st overall picks Hall, RNH and Yakupov, plus Schultz - they really should be showing improvement this season as I would argue the POTENTIAL depth of talented players is more than what either Pitt or Chi had. Of course, the Oilers don't have the top end talent that either team had/has in Crosby/Malkin or Toews/Kane. although they should reach the Toews/Kane level.



Great posts to add some perspective. For me, if the Oilers aren't serious contenders in the West next season (not saying they have to be 1st or 2nd) I'll be very, very concerned.

Next season will be Gagner's 7th, Eberle's 4th, Hall's 4th and RNH's 3rd.


And it took Gagner 7 seasons to get where he is...



Learning is the most important part of learning basic defence.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591496 is a reply to message #591495 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 11:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mars  is currently offline Mars
Messages: 731
Registered: February 2013
Location: Rockies

No Cups

that's disheartening


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591500 is a reply to message #591496 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 12:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Magnum  is currently offline Magnum
Messages: 4345
Registered: June 2009
Location: In a Prism of Frustration

4 Cups

Mars wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 11:32

that's disheartening


That's probably the norm though.



Learning is the most important part of learning basic defence.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591506 is a reply to message #591500 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 13:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dr. Oil  is currently offline Dr. Oil
Messages: 2136
Registered: June 2003
Location: BC

2 Cups

Magnum wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 11:16

Mars wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 11:32

that's disheartening


That's probably the norm though.


From the same draft, Voracek is just taking off this year as well. Van Riemsdyk too.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591507 is a reply to message #591506 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 13:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rukm01  is currently offline rukm01
Messages: 2059
Registered: December 2004
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

Dr. Oil wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 13:34

From the same draft, Voracek is just taking off this year as well. Van Riemsdyk too.


Wayne Simmonds as well at close to a point per game.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591510 is a reply to message #591507 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 14:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mike  is currently offline Mike
Messages: 6423
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

6 Cups

rukm01 wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 16:41

Dr. Oil wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 13:34

From the same draft, Voracek is just taking off this year as well. Van Riemsdyk too.


Wayne Simmonds as well at close to a point per game.


Yeah, we were spoiled coming out of the last lockout. Crosby and Ovechkin putting up over 100 points as rookies, then Malkin over 1PPG the following year. Needless to say, but that's not the norm.

Look through the league leaders this year, and sure guys like Crosby and Stamkos (to a lesser extent) were great right out of the gate or at a young age, but several of the top 20 guys hadn't done much in the NHL be the time they were 23 if they had even played.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591514 is a reply to message #591510 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 14:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 9613
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Mike wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 14:00

rukm01 wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 16:41

Dr. Oil wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 13:34

From the same draft, Voracek is just taking off this year as well. Van Riemsdyk too.


Wayne Simmonds as well at close to a point per game.


Yeah, we were spoiled coming out of the last lockout. Crosby and Ovechkin putting up over 100 points as rookies, then Malkin over 1PPG the following year. Needless to say, but that's not the norm.

Look through the league leaders this year, and sure guys like Crosby and Stamkos (to a lesser extent) were great right out of the gate or at a young age, but several of the top 20 guys hadn't done much in the NHL be the time they were 23 if they had even played.


Absolutely. The Sedins, Iginla, Thornton, Perry, Giroux...lots of players take several years to truly hit their stride. The trick is not giving up on the player too early. Can you imagine if the Canucks had tired of the Sedins' development?



#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireEakins #FireActon #FireSmith #FireBuchberger #FireMoores #Burnitdown #KeepJoey

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591515 is a reply to message #591514 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 14:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ragnarok73  is currently offline Ragnarok73
Messages: 2487
Registered: February 2011

2 Cups

Adam wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 14:31

Absolutely. The Sedins, Iginla, Thornton, Perry, Giroux...lots of players take several years to truly hit their stride. The trick is not giving up on the player too early. Can you imagine if the Canucks had tired of the Sedins' development?

Ack, this thread is going off topic a bit. I never said I was giving up on the players, which is why I was putting the spotlight on the coaching. I still think a more experienced coach would be better for teaching the young guys how to win in this league.



"Life is warfare and the sojourn of a stranger in a strange land." - Marcus Aurelius

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591516 is a reply to message #591515 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 15:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rocksteady  is currently offline Rocksteady
Messages: 2871
Registered: March 2007

2 Cups

Ragnarok73 wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 14:49

Ack, this thread is going off topic a bit. I never said I was giving up on the players, which is why I was putting the spotlight on the coaching. I still think a more experienced coach would be better for teaching the young guys how to win in this league.


*cough* Lindy Ruff *cough*



Here Come the Oilers™ icon_rolleyes

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591517 is a reply to message #591515 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 15:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 1004
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

1 Cup

Ragnarok73 wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 13:49


Ack, this thread is going off topic a bit. I never said I was giving up on the players, which is why I was putting the spotlight on the coaching. I still think a more experienced coach would be better for teaching the young guys how to win in this league.


Ya, can we please go back to making snap judgements about a coach 20 games into his first season with barely a training camp and almost no practice time. icon_rolleyes

Our top 6 forwards in terms of ice time are (in order):

RNH
Eberle
Gagner
Hall
Hemsky
Jones

3 of those guys have less than 3 years of NHL experience, and 4 of them are 23 years old or under. Can you find another team that is rolling with a top half of their line-up that is that young and inexperienced? I can't think of one. And if there is, how much success are they having?

Your complaints are that they're playing Yak on the wrong side. He's got 6 goals already. How many more did you expect him to have at this point? Even if he doubled that production, how many more wins would that mean for the team? And Krueger has already stated that they are doing it to help him on the defensive side of the puck, which the kid clearly needs.

You also don't like that he keeps playing Whitney. Whitney has played only the 5th most minutes of any defenceman on the team, and is one of the few veterans that we have. No one is arguing that Whitney is playing well, but if you think that elevating Potter or Fistric above Whitney on the depth chart is going to make the Oilers significantly better then we're not watching the same games.

And you don't like that the Oilers can't "simplify their game". Posters on here railed for years that MacT was stifling offense and now we want Krueger to do just that. We've got an insane amount of skill on this team and I for one don't want it to be stifled. What do you want Krueger to do, tell the kids that they're benched if they ever do another drop pass? Of course they need to learn how to pick their spots and when to use the drop pass and when to use a dump in, when to deke and when to shoot. But this is the NHL, if it were easy, everyone would be doing it.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591523 is a reply to message #591517 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 16:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ragnarok73  is currently offline Ragnarok73
Messages: 2487
Registered: February 2011

2 Cups

Goose wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 15:40

Ya, can we please go back to making snap judgements about a coach 20 games into his first season with barely a training camp and almost no practice time. icon_rolleyes

I wish I had the kind of patience you do where 20 games is equal to the blinking of an eye, and it's 22 games, by the way. This isn't quite the same as calling for Krueger's head after 2 games. Yes, I get that he's a new coach, but for me, that's a mark against him as a *head coach*. Besides which, throughout this thread and others, I haven't been calling for him to get canned completely, just sent back to being an assistant while someone more experienced takes over.

Goose wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 15:40

Our top 6 forwards in terms of ice time are (in order):

RNH
Eberle
Gagner
Hall
Hemsky
Jones

3 of those guys have less than 3 years of NHL experience, and 4 of them are 23 years old or under. Can you find another team that is rolling with a top half of their line-up that is that young and inexperienced? I can't think of one. And if there is, how much success are they having?

I thought I just said earlier that I am not putting blame on the players, at least as much I am on management and coaching. I stick to what I said earlier: when you have inexperienced players, it makes more sense to have an *experienced* coach to mold them into an effective team. I don't hate Krueger completely; my concern is whether having him as the *head* coach is the best idea when guys like Lindy Ruff are available. I wish people would read all of my posts before making snap replies...

Goose wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 15:40

Your complaints are that they're playing Yak on the wrong side. He's got 6 goals already. How many more did you expect him to have at this point? Even if he doubled that production, how many more wins would that mean for the team? And Krueger has already stated that they are doing it to help him on the defensive side of the puck, which the kid clearly needs.

More goals wouldn't help the team get more wins? Also, what's wrong with first helping the kid to develop his *strengths* to match the higher level that he's now playing at? Have him play his offensive game while teaching him to be more responsible defensively instead of stifling him from the outset. When you don't have all the pieces of a championship team, the next best thing to do generally is to make the best use of the players you do have. Krueger just isn't doing that with Yak, IMO.

Goose wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 15:40

You also don't like that he keeps playing Whitney. Whitney has played only the 5th most minutes of any defenceman on the team, and is one of the few veterans that we have. No one is arguing that Whitney is playing well, but if you think that elevating Potter or Fistric above Whitney on the depth chart is going to make the Oilers significantly better then we're not watching the same games.

We apparently aren't watching the same games, otherwise you'd realize that "5th most minutes" is still too many for a guy who's been broken by injuries with a questionable attitude to go with it. Feel free to watch the extensive footage of previous games this season where Whitney has made mistakes that led directly to the opposing team scoring. I don't think I've ever stated that Potter is a better player, but Fistric leads the team in +/- rating, and he also punishes opposing players for gaining the zone to boot.

Goose wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 15:40

And you don't like that the Oilers can't "simplify their game". Posters on here railed for years that MacT was stifling offense and now we want Krueger to do just that. We've got an insane amount of skill on this team and I for one don't want it to be stifled. What do you want Krueger to do, tell the kids that they're benched if they ever do another drop pass? Of course they need to learn how to pick their spots and when to use the drop pass and when to use a dump in, when to deke and when to shoot. But this is the NHL, if it were easy, everyone would be doing it.

The worst team in the league seemed to learn it easily enough, based on how they dominated the Oil on Tuesday night, not to mention the first time they played the Oil this season. Put the puck on net and get rebounds- that's not a complicated concept to instill into players. Why has the Oil PP gone down the toilet over the past few games? Because they keep passing and passing and passing instead of just SHOOTING THE @#$@#$# PUCK. Is this too complicated to understand? Please, if it is, then send a memo to Krueger with your ideas on how to accomplish this complex tactic so that maybe the Oil can outshoot a team in a game for once.

Here's a great example that involves an OILER player applying this complex tactic:



Get puck on net, and good things can happen. It's not that hard, is it?

[Updated on: Thu, 07 March 2013 17:00]


"Life is warfare and the sojourn of a stranger in a strange land." - Marcus Aurelius

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591678 is a reply to message #591523 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 23:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Goose  is currently offline Goose
Messages: 1004
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

1 Cup

Here's my point, and one that you seem to be misunderstanding: the Oilers aren't a good team. Not that they don't have skill, but they are missing some key pieces. One's that "coaching" can't fix on it's own.

They have 2 legitimate NHL defencemen, and one of them is a rookie. You don't like Whitney. That's fine, he hasn't been good, no one is arguing that. But if you think playing Fistric more is going to somehow make this team a playoff contender, you're delusional.

RNH hasn't been great this year. He's a 19 year old kid playing the most minutes of any forward on the team. And he plays on a line with a 20 year old and a 22 year old. What other team does that? The sad fact is that Krueger doesn't have any other options. Who else is he going to throw out there? Belanger? Vande Velde? I don't understand what you want the guy to do. Is Lindy Ruff supposed to turn Belanger into an offensive dynamo, or give RNH 5 years of experience?

Playing Yak on the right side doesn't make this team a playoff team. Maybe he scores a few more goals, but then you're switching our current leading goal scorer to the opposite side. How many fewer goals does Hemsky have if he's forced to play on his off wing because the fans are enamoured with Yaks one-timer from the right? And honestly I would rather see Yak develop a more well-rounded game than simply hammering away one-timers from the right side. But that's just me. I tend to think that NHL teams can shut-down one trick ponies pretty easily. We can agree to disagree on that point.

As for the Oilers passing too much, why is it that you think they are doing that? It's an honest question. Are you suggesting that guys that have played (or coached) elite level hockey for most of their lives can't figure it out, but you've stumbled upon the secret? Do you think Krueger and the coaches are sitting in the room and saying, "damn, we should really pass more, since everyone knows that just passing the puck around definitely leads to goals. Shots never go in, only passes". My guess is that it stems from a lack of experienced personnel and confidence, but you seem to think it can be fixed by the coaches just telling the players to shoot more, if only they realized that they were getting outshot every game.

Maybe you should be the one to send Krueger an email, since you've got this whole how to be successful in the NHL thing figured out.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591679 is a reply to message #591678 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 23:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
azimuth30  is currently offline azimuth30
Messages: 182
Registered: February 2008

No Cups

Goose wrote on Fri, 08 March 2013 02:18

Here's my point, and one that you seem to be misunderstanding: the Oilers aren't a good team. Not that they don't have skill, but they are missing some key pieces. One's that "coaching" can't fix on it's own.

They have 2 legitimate NHL defencemen, and one of them is a rookie. You don't like Whitney. That's fine, he hasn't been good, no one is arguing that. But if you think playing Fistric more is going to somehow make this team a playoff contender, you're delusional.

RNH hasn't been great this year. He's a 19 year old kid playing the most minutes of any forward on the team. And he plays on a line with a 20 year old and a 22 year old. What other team does that? The sad fact is that Krueger doesn't have any other options. Who else is he going to throw out there? Belanger? Vande Velde? I don't understand what you want the guy to do. Is Lindy Ruff supposed to turn Belanger into an offensive dynamo, or give RNH 5 years of experience?

Playing Yak on the right side doesn't make this team a playoff team. Maybe he scores a few more goals, but then you're switching our current leading goal scorer to the opposite side. How many fewer goals does Hemsky have if he's forced to play on his off wing because the fans are enamoured with Yaks one-timer from the right? And honestly I would rather see Yak develop a more well-rounded game than simply hammering away one-timers from the right side. But that's just me. I tend to think that NHL teams can shut-down one trick ponies pretty easily. We can agree to disagree on that point.

As for the Oilers passing too much, why is it that you think they are doing that? It's an honest question. Are you suggesting that guys that have played (or coached) elite level hockey for most of their lives can't figure it out, but you've stumbled upon the secret? Do you think Krueger and the coaches are sitting in the room and saying, "damn, we should really pass more, since everyone knows that just passing the puck around definitely leads to goals. Shots never go in, only passes". My guess is that it stems from a lack of experienced personnel and confidence, but you seem to think it can be fixed by the coaches just telling the players to shoot more, if only they realized that they were getting outshot every game.

Maybe you should be the one to send Krueger an email, since you've got this whole how to be successful in the NHL thing figured out.


slow clap



"What, me worry?"
-Alfred E. Neuman

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591681 is a reply to message #591678 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 23:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rukm01  is currently offline rukm01
Messages: 2059
Registered: December 2004
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

Goose wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 23:18

Here's my point, and one that you seem to be misunderstanding: the Oilers aren't a good team. Not that they don't have skill, but they are missing some key pieces. One's that "coaching" can't fix on it's own.



Good post, Goose. I would only add that there is no way Krueger should be shown the door before Lowebellini. Besides the fact that they're the ones who assembled this team, Ralph's their hire. Even if he turns out to be an air disaster, they should go down either with or before their coach IMO. How many turns of the coaching carousel do they get?



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591684 is a reply to message #591681 ]
Fri, 08 March 2013 00:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ronster  is currently offline ronster
Messages: 965
Registered: October 2005

No Cups

rukm01 wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 22:34

Goose wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 23:18

Here's my point, and one that you seem to be misunderstanding: the Oilers aren't a good team. Not that they don't have skill, but they are missing some key pieces. One's that "coaching" can't fix on it's own.



Good post, Goose. I would only add that there is no way Krueger should be shown the door before Lowebellini. Besides the fact that they're the ones who assembled this team, Ralph's their hire. Even if he turns out to be an air disaster, they should go down either with or before their coach IMO. How many turns of the coaching carousel do they get?



In the end the makeup of the team is what's ailing the team. I dont care who you are, you aren't gonna coach a young skilled team to play a grinder's game overnight. We just dont have the horses to do that. Too much skill, not enough will.

That "makeup" falls on management including the Pro / Amateur Scouting staff. Personally I would be looking closely on the scouting staff side as well to see what improvements can be made there.

Overall the management team is filled with egos, thinking they are outsmarting everybody and the result is creating a mess on the ice. But I can't see Katz firing Lowe....




Adam wrote


Maybe it's fitting to have found religion in the room because on most nights this team doesn't have a prayer.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591691 is a reply to message #591678 ]
Fri, 08 March 2013 02:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ragnarok73  is currently offline Ragnarok73
Messages: 2487
Registered: February 2011

2 Cups

Goose wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 23:18

Here's my point, and one that you seem to be misunderstanding: the Oilers aren't a good team. Not that they don't have skill, but they are missing some key pieces. One's that "coaching" can't fix on it's own.

"The Oilers aren't a good team."= Understatement of the eon.

I know that the Oil don't have all of the personnel. However, a good coach can at least identify more clearly what pieces he needs and then convey that to the GM. I'm not assuming that the GM in question will automatically listen, but guys like Ruff would be quite vocal about it at least.

Goose wrote on Thu, 07 March 2 013 23:18

They have 2 legitimate NHL defencemen, and one of them is a rookie. You don't like Whitney. That's fine, he hasn't been good, no one is arguing that. But if you think playing Fistric more is going to somehow make this team a playoff contender, you're delusional.

He's an upgrade on Whitney, but I never said he was the only answer. I'm pointing towards the fact that Krueger kept rotating him in and out of the lineup while he was healthy as a sign that he's just feeling his way through games as a head coach.

Goose wrote on Thu, 07 March 2 013 23:18

RNH hasn't been great this year. He's a 19 year old kid playing the most minutes of any forward on the team. And he plays on a line with a 20 year old and a 22 year old. What other team does that? The sad fact is that Krueger doesn't have any other options. Who else is he going to throw out there? Belanger? Vande Velde? I don't understand what you want the guy to do. Is Lindy Ruff supposed to turn Belanger into an offensive dynamo, or give RNH 5 years of experience?

A more experienced coach makes a better teacher. Hell, a more experienced guy in any field makes for a better teacher. This isn't hockey lore; it's simple common sense. Do you put in a coach who's got a grand total of 0 years of NHL head coaching experience when a guy like Ruff is available? You're stating the obvious again by saying that Krueger has no choice.

Goose wrote on Thu, 07 March 2 013 23:18

Playing Yak on the right side doesn't make this team a playoff team. Maybe he scores a few more goals, but then you're switching our current leading goal scorer to the opposite side. How many fewer goals does Hemsky have if he's forced to play on his off wing because the fans are enamoured with Yaks one-timer from the right? And honestly I would rather see Yak develop a more well-rounded game than simply hammering away one-timers from the right side. But that's just me. I tend to think that NHL teams can shut-down one trick ponies pretty easily. We can agree to disagree on that point.

Who the @#$@ said anything about playoffs? I didn't- I'd just like to see that this team is actually headed in the right direction towards becoming a contender. Again, I'm talking about common sense in tactics: make use of those that highlight each player's strengths. I have no problem with Yak developing into a more rounded player, but not at the cost of putting a big collar around his neck when his natural game involves scoring and offense. You may notice that Ebs, Hall, and RNH weren't relegated to 3rd or 4th line duty on anything resembling a regular basis in their rookie years. Renney had at least enough sense to realize that he wasn't going to make them into complete hockey players overnight and so let them play to their strengths (re: offense).

Goose wrote on Thu, 07 March 2 013 23:18

As for the Oilers passing too much, why is it that you think they are doing that? It's an honest question. Are you suggesting that guys that have played (or coached) elite level hockey for most of their lives can't figure it out, but you've stumbled upon the secret? Do you think Krueger and the coaches are sitting in the room and saying, "damn, we should really pass more, since everyone knows that just passing the puck around definitely leads to goals. Shots never go in, only passes". My guess is that it stems from a lack of experienced personnel and confidence, but you seem to think it can be fixed by the coaches just telling the players to shoot more, if only they realized that they were getting outshot every game.

Maybe you should be the one to send Krueger an email, since you've got this whole how to be successful in the NHL thing figured out.

Maybe I should, because he seems to have his head firmly up his @#$ right now when it comes to tactics. The main proof comes in how badly their PP is being run in the past 2 weeks. As J Schultz demonstrated in that vid I posted, you don't need a MacInnis-level booming shot on net from the point to get things going. Just get the damn puck on net with at least one guy in front to provide the screen. Of course that's easier said than done, but the team isn't even trying to do this in their PP as of late for whatever reason.

Yes, Krueger wasn't given a great set of tools to work with in his first year as HC. I didn't expect this team to make the playoffs this year, but I would just like to see them at least heading in the right direction. Right now, it appears like they've regressed to the level of play that saw them scraping the bottom of the league. I just don't think right now that Ralph is the guy to take a team this bad and move it forward, though I can't entirely blame him. Maybe it's just that the load was too much for a guy who's never been a head coach. I can also agree with those who think that management gave him less than a full set of cards to start with too, so I'd love to see changes there. However, as I don't see Lowebellini getting canned, the next best thing would be to get an experienced coach in there.



"Life is warfare and the sojourn of a stranger in a strange land." - Marcus Aurelius

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591756 is a reply to message #591691 ]
Fri, 08 March 2013 13:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 9613
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

A few points here. Experience doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Babcock, Tippett, Quenneville, Bowman...none of those guys started out experienced. Hell, the guy you keep mentioning has had all of one NHL head coaching job. He finished playing in 1993, was hired as an assistant in Florida from 1993-97 and then moved in to a head coaching position with Buffalo. Oh, and in his second season he took the Sabres to Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals.

Now, Ruff hasn't done a lot recently. His teams have failed to win a playoff series since 2007, so he clearly doesn't have all the answers. We did try another experienced coach recently as well...you may remember Pat Quinn? It wasn't a smashing success.

There are always going to be a few of those guys out there who've been around the coaching carousel a few times, and I don't think they are necessarily any better of a hire than a first time NHL coach. I doubt there's a coach in the league who could have made the Oilers of the last three years in to a playoff contender, and it's even more difficult in a market like Edmonton, where the fans wouldn't stand for a Minnesota Wild-type approach to winning games, which might be more successful in the short run.

If you admit that the Oilers don't appear to have the tools to win this season, then I fail to see why you're in such a rush to change the head coach YET AGAIN. Clearly, that particular move hasn't resulted in instant success at any point in the last four years of rotating the top guy on the coaching ladder.

Goose had some great points in his post. Whatever Krueger is doing, he isn't telling players to pass up scoring chances. I disagree with your assessment that in previous years the rookies haven't been sheltered. It's just more obvious and easier to do when there's only one rookie. As it is, we saw a lot of nights over the last couple of seasons when the icetime leaders were not named Nugent-Hopkins, Hall or Eberle. They played a lot of time together so it wasn't always apparent that they were being moved down the pecking order, but they were not true first liners until this season from an icetime point of view and there were many situations they weren't playing in the last couple of years.

Personally, I would like to see Yakupov in the last couple minutes more often and Eric Belanger and Lennart Petrell a lot less, but I don't change coaches over something like that.



#FireLowe #FireMacT #FireHowson #FireEakins #FireActon #FireSmith #FireBuchberger #FireMoores #Burnitdown #KeepJoey

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591763 is a reply to message #591756 ]
Fri, 08 March 2013 14:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ragnarok73  is currently offline Ragnarok73
Messages: 2487
Registered: February 2011

2 Cups

Adam wrote on Fri, 08 March 2013 13:43

A few points here. Experience doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Babcock, Tippett, Quenneville, Bowman...none of those guys started out experienced. Hell, the guy you keep mentioning has had all of one NHL head coaching job. He finished playing in 1993, was hired as an assistant in Florida from 1993-97 and then moved in to a head coaching position with Buffalo. Oh, and in his second season he took the Sabres to Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals.

Now, Ruff hasn't done a lot recently. His teams have failed to win a playoff series since 2007, so he clearly doesn't have all the answers. We did try another experienced coach recently as well...you may remember Pat Quinn? It wasn't a smashing success.

There are always going to be a few of those guys out there who've been around the coaching carousel a few times, and I don't think they are necessarily any better of a hire than a first time NHL coach. I doubt there's a coach in the league who could have made the Oilers of the last three years in to a playoff contender, and it's even more difficult in a market like Edmonton, where the fans wouldn't stand for a Minnesota Wild-type approach to winning games, which might be more successful in the short run.

If you admit that the Oilers don't appear to have the tools to win this season, then I fail to see why you're in such a rush to change the head coach YET AGAIN. Clearly, that particular move hasn't resulted in instant success at any point in the last four years of rotating the top guy on the coaching ladder.

Goose had some great points in his post. Whatever Krueger is doing, he isn't telling players to pass up scoring chances. I disagree with your assessment that in previous years the rookies haven't been sheltered. It's just more obvious and easier to do when there's only one rookie. As it is, we saw a lot of nights over the last couple of seasons when the icetime leaders were not named Nugent-Hopkins, Hall or Eberle. They played a lot of time together so it wasn't always apparent that they were being moved down the pecking order, but they were not true first liners until this season from an icetime point of view and there were many situations they weren't playing in the last couple of years.

Personally, I would like to see Yakupov in the last couple minutes more often and Eric Belanger and Lennart Petrell a lot less, but I don't change coaches over something like that.

I will concede the points you brought up. I'm a very frustrated guy who's looking to see something, anything to change to get this team going in the right direction. I shouldn't be so emotionally invested when I had low expectations going into this season, but I am, because my patience with seeing a bottom-feeding team on the ice is wearing very very thin.

I am being hard on Krueger, and it's because I have the fear that if it does turn out that he's not the guy, it may be too late to do anything about it.

What is pain? Being an Oilers fan right now. icon_dead



"Life is warfare and the sojourn of a stranger in a strange land." - Marcus Aurelius

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591520 is a reply to message #591510 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 16:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
K.McC#24  is currently offline K.McC#24
Messages: 2591
Registered: March 2004
Location: ALBERTA

2 Cups

Mike wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 14:00

rukm01 wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 16:41

Dr. Oil wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 13:34

From the same draft, Voracek is just taking off this year as well. Van Riemsdyk too.


Wayne Simmonds as well at close to a point per game.


Yeah, we were spoiled coming out of the last lockout. Crosby and Ovechkin putting up over 100 points as rookies, then Malkin over 1PPG the following year. Needless to say, but that's not the norm.

Look through the league leaders this year, and sure guys like Crosby and Stamkos (to a lesser extent) were great right out of the gate or at a young age, but several of the top 20 guys hadn't done much in the NHL be the time they were 23 if they had even played.


I think what became an issue out of the 2005 CBA with drafted players and how UFA eligibility was basically moved up a minimum of 4 years (31 to 27...or 25 with 7 years in the league). You can't own a player for 10+ years anymore and either wait for him to develop or discard him. Drafted players are getting looks very early in their careers and longer looks at that, just because management is being forced to assess/evaluate their talent & upside much, much earlier than was necessary prior to the last CBA. When Iginla was in his first contract, there was NO pressure to get him in the league....now it's very different. Teams don't have as much time for late bloomers in terms of their own draft picks.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591521 is a reply to message #591520 ]
Thu, 07 March 2013 16:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mars  is currently offline Mars
Messages: 731
Registered: February 2013
Location: Rockies

No Cups

K.McC#24 wrote on Thu, 07 March 2013 16:10

I think what became an issue out of the 2005 CBA with drafted players and how UFA eligibility was basically moved up a minimum of 4 years (31 to 27...or 25 with 7 years in the league). You can't own a player for 10+ years anymore and either wait for him to develop or discard him. Drafted players are getting looks very early in their careers and longer looks at that, just because management is being forced to assess/evaluate their talent & upside much, much earlier than was necessary prior to the last CBA. When Iginla was in his first contract, there was NO pressure to get him in the league....now it's very different. Teams don't have as much time for late bloomers in terms of their own draft picks.


I agree, teams don't have as much time as they used and once guys fully develop the window to win in shorter



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591735 is a reply to message #591521 ]
Fri, 08 March 2013 11:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
halfafrog  is currently offline halfafrog
Messages: 1026
Registered: March 2006
Location: Scottsdale, AZ

1 Cup

Its Lowebellini that needs to go. Freddy K I thought was a mistake as the coach but he really isn't the issue. I would rather have someone who is much grittier as a coach. A Sutter, Trotz, someone that believes in hard work. Hell I would even take Hitchcock for a year (though he doesn't hold his teams much longer than that and they all rebel). Someone to give these lads structure but unfortunately I believe the problem is management. It has to be cleaned out, and then we hire a new coach. We have issues for sure. I actually like Mike Brown for his work ethic. I'm sure that will be taken out of him when he realizes he can go through the motions. I'm getting pretty cynical here.....


Lowe

Lower

Lowest

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591737 is a reply to message #591735 ]
Fri, 08 March 2013 12:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sloiler  is currently offline sloiler
Messages: 197
Registered: October 2005
Location: Enemy Territory (near Cal...

No Cups

I get the feeling that Sutter was choice number one, but he wanted some seperation from Calgary first and the easy answer was to put Kruger in. I have a feeling that Sutter may be here this summer


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591748 is a reply to message #591737 ]
Fri, 08 March 2013 13:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ragnarok73  is currently offline Ragnarok73
Messages: 2487
Registered: February 2011

2 Cups

sloiler wrote on Fri, 08 March 2013 12:02

I get the feeling that Sutter was choice number one, but he wanted some seperation from Calgary first and the easy answer was to put Kruger in. I have a feeling that Sutter may be here this summer

If you're talking about Darryl, then I concur. Brent's not the coach that his brother is.



"Life is warfare and the sojourn of a stranger in a strange land." - Marcus Aurelius

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591752 is a reply to message #591748 ]
Fri, 08 March 2013 13:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sloiler  is currently offline sloiler
Messages: 197
Registered: October 2005
Location: Enemy Territory (near Cal...

No Cups

No I was talking about Brent, Darryl was already taken when Lowe and Co were looking for a coach


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591946 is a reply to message #590997 ]
Sat, 09 March 2013 13:53 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
K.McC#24  is currently offline K.McC#24
Messages: 2591
Registered: March 2004
Location: ALBERTA

2 Cups

I'm wondering how much the style and the message of the coaching staff has actually changed since Tom Renney replaced Pat Quinn?

Krueger's was here for 2 years under Renney prior to this year.

Buchberger somehow has been an assistant coach since 2008-09.

Smith is in his 3rd season, like Krueger.

How is it that everyone was here under Renney.....Renney was deemed a failure, yet all the other pieces remain? Has there really been a demonstrative change in philosophy and ability brought to the table?

I don't think so.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: So how much longer do we give Krueger? [message #591947 is a reply to message #591946 ]
Sat, 09 March 2013 14:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Regulator  is currently offline Regulator
Messages: 1405
Registered: April 2007

1 Cup

K.McC#24 wrote on Sat, 09 March 2013 13:53

I'm wondering how much the style and the message of the coaching staff has actually changed since Tom Renney replaced Pat Quinn?

Krueger's was here for 2 years under Renney prior to this year.

Buchberger somehow has been an assistant coach since 2008-09.

Smith is in his 3rd season, like Krueger.

How is it that everyone was here under Renney.....Renney was deemed a failure, yet all the other pieces remain? Has there really been a demonstrative change in philosophy and ability brought to the table?

I don't think so.


Exactly, been saying this for years now. If you want to stop the sickness, get rid of the whole cancer, not a tiny piece.....same voices, same philosophy, same model, same results.......just brutal



dkb19 wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 13:05 (re: Horcoff)

He's like a mastercard comercial, alot of what he does is priceless.

Send a private message to this user  

Pages (3): [ «  <  1  2  3  >  »]  
Previous Topic:Pregame: Nashville @ Edmonton (Game #28)
Next Topic:Review: Detroit @ Edmonton (Game #27)
Oilers NHL Minors Speculation For Sale 


Copyright OilFans.com 1996-2013.
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