OilFans.com :: Fan Forum: Oilers => Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29)

Guest

Login / Register

This day on March 22
Acquired: Mike Hudson (1993)
Departed: Craig Muni (1993)

Happy Birthday To: BoydFan, Petahn, chrisoilman, Zeee, tazman71

OILERS INFO OILFANS
Wednesday, Mar 22, 2023 8:06 PM MT

F.A.Q.

Terms of Use F.A.Q.

F.A.Q.

Members

Search

Register

Login

Home

Oilers » Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29)

Pages (3): [ « < 1 2 3 > »]

Switch to flat view

Switch to tree view

Create a new topic

Submit Reply

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593158 is a reply to message #593156 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 23:01

Goose
Messages: 2017
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

2 Cups

K.McC#24 wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 21:59

Krueger had an opportunity to do a bit of coaching and try to get control of this thing a lot earlier in the 3rd (after the 3-2 goal, for example). He didn't.

Given that the Oilers really didn't get after this game, and that this is a recent trend in terms of giving up 2 goal leads in the 3rd.....I'd say that Krueger bears at least some responsibility in terms of the team's performance in some of these huge hockey games.

It's one thing when you've got a team of grizzled vets who've been there before, but this is a young frigging hockey team, and in my opinion sometimes some aggressive coaching is more effective with a young team rather than a passive approach.

I'm not saying Krueger has done a flawless job of coaching this team.

I just don't buy the argument that he "played not to lose" in the OT, given the personnel that he deployed. It's a nonsensical position.

Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19: 232 GF / 274 GA (-42)
19/20 (82 game pace): 257 GF / 254 GA (+3) in 64 games
2021 (82 game pace):269 GF / 235 GA (+34) after 38 games

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593164 is a reply to message #593158 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 23:08

K.McC#24
Messages: 5255
Registered: March 2004
Location: ALBERTA

5 Cups

Goose wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 23:01

K.McC#24 wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 21:59

Krueger had an opportunity to do a bit of coaching and try to get control of this thing a lot earlier in the 3rd (after the 3-2 goal, for example). He didn't.

Given that the Oilers really didn't get after this game, and that this is a recent trend in terms of giving up 2 goal leads in the 3rd.....I'd say that Krueger bears at least some responsibility in terms of the team's performance in some of these huge hockey games.

It's one thing when you've got a team of grizzled vets who've been there before, but this is a young frigging hockey team, and in my opinion sometimes some aggressive coaching is more effective with a young team rather than a passive approach.

I'm not saying Krueger has done a flawless job of coaching this team.

I just don't buy the argument that he "played not to lose" in the OT, given the personnel that he deployed. It's a nonsensical position.

Well at least he didn't have Smytty out there circling in the neutral zone trying to catch up to the play in OT. If that happened again, there might have been a torch & pitchfork party outside Rexall.

Krueger could have been a coach on the bench to reign this thing in the 3rd, and chose not to do it. Rewarding Yak after a great energetic shift in the 3rd with a seat on the bench for the duration didn't impress either.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593195 is a reply to message #593158 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 10:35

Skoobz
Messages: 1523
Registered: January 2006

1 Cup

Goose wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 23:01

K.McC#24 wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 21:59

Krueger had an opportunity to do a bit of coaching and try to get control of this thing a lot earlier in the 3rd (after the 3-2 goal, for example). He didn't.

Given that the Oilers really didn't get after this game, and that this is a recent trend in terms of giving up 2 goal leads in the 3rd.....I'd say that Krueger bears at least some responsibility in terms of the team's performance in some of these huge hockey games.

It's one thing when you've got a team of grizzled vets who've been there before, but this is a young frigging hockey team, and in my opinion sometimes some aggressive coaching is more effective with a young team rather than a passive approach.

I'm not saying Krueger has done a flawless job of coaching this team.

I just don't buy the argument that he "played not to lose" in the OT, given the personnel that he deployed. It's a nonsensical position.

It GOT to ot because he played not to lose.

"[It was] really cool to throw on the Oilers gear, the gear that I want to play the rest of my life wearing. It was pretty cool to put it on. With all the history, it was a lot of fun." - Connor McDavid, July 1, 2015

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593197 is a reply to message #593195 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 10:44

Mike
Messages: 4027
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

4 Cups

Skoobz wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 13:35

Goose wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 23:01

K.McC#24 wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 21:59

Krueger had an opportunity to do a bit of coaching and try to get control of this thing a lot earlier in the 3rd (after the 3-2 goal, for example). He didn't.

Given that the Oilers really didn't get after this game, and that this is a recent trend in terms of giving up 2 goal leads in the 3rd.....I'd say that Krueger bears at least some responsibility in terms of the team's performance in some of these huge hockey games.

It's one thing when you've got a team of grizzled vets who've been there before, but this is a young frigging hockey team, and in my opinion sometimes some aggressive coaching is more effective with a young team rather than a passive approach.

I'm not saying Krueger has done a flawless job of coaching this team.

I just don't buy the argument that he "played not to lose" in the OT, given the personnel that he deployed. It's a nonsensical position.

It GOT to ot because he played not to lose.

Yeah - replacing Yakupov with Petrell on that line after he had an amazing shift with about 10 minutes to go in the game. It reeked.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593200 is a reply to message #593197 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 11:18

Goose
Messages: 2017
Registered: October 2006
Location: Vancouver

2 Cups

Mike wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 09:44

Skoobz wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 13:35

It GOT to ot because he played not to lose.

Yeah - replacing Yakupov with Petrell on that line after he had an amazing shift with about 10 minutes to go in the game. It reeked.

Petrell played 1 real shift with Gagner and Paajarvi after Yakupov's last shift. Gagner and MPS were out there in the last minute of the game playing with Eberle, Petrell was not.

I'm not a fan of sitting Yakupov in the last 6 minutes of the game either. Especially after the hit he laid out that ignited the crowd. I even referenced it in the GDT.

But I think people are latching onto that one event and taking too much from it. Keep in mind Yakupov is a 19-year old rookie with a quarter of a season of experience and the worst +/- on the team. I don't think that Krueger is the only coach in the league that would make the same decision, and I definitely don't think it can be used as evidence that Krueger doesn't want to win.

The Oilers played with purpose and aggression for most of the third. They scored one goal by being aggressive, and if Gagner scores instead of hitting the post, we're not even having this discussion. Yes, San Jose pushed back and had the Oilers on their heels for parts of the third. But people seem to forget that this was a big game for the Sharks too. Based on what some people post on here (not directed at you Mike), it's like they think that if the Oilers just "keep it simple", and "play to win" then they'll never lose another game again.

Oilers Goal Differential
17/18: 234 GF / 263 GA (-29)
18/19: 232 GF / 274 GA (-42)
19/20 (82 game pace): 257 GF / 254 GA (+3) in 64 games
2021 (82 game pace):269 GF / 235 GA (+34) after 38 games

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593201 is a reply to message #593200 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 11:30

Mike
Messages: 4027
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

4 Cups

Goose wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 14:18

But I think people are latching onto that one event and taking too much from it.

I'm not on an anti-Krueger crusade. But I do hate that he changes the lines in the 3rd when we're up by 1 or 2 or even tied, and tried to put out "responsible" combinations, which invariably leads to lots and lots of play in our own end. And I don't think it's fair to say "that one event" - Yakupov has essentially been benched all or part of the 3rd period at least 3 times now in favor of guys like Smyth and Petrell. If you believe that those guys give us a better chance of winning, that's fine, we can agree to disagree. But it was than just one event.

Goose wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 14:18

Keep in mind Yakupov is a 19-year old rookie with a quarter of a season of experience and the worst +/- on the team. I don't think that Krueger is the only coach in the league that would make the same decision, and I definitely don't think it can be used as evidence that Krueger doesn't want to win.

Of course Krueger wants to win. Hyperbole claiming otherwise is ridiculous. And I understand that as a coach it can be a bit scary to play a 19 year old kid, but he has made lots of great defensive plays the last few games. If Smyth was Datsyuk or Carbonneau, then sure, I could understand. But in my opinion, Yakupov is at least as good as Smyth and Petrell defensively. And if he gets caught, he can make up for it with his speed. It's not to say goals aren't going to be scored because he makes a mistake, but his learning curve on the other side of the puck (to my eye anyway) has been steep.

So to me, defensively, it's close to a wash. MAYBE Smyth or Petrell might be a touch better. But I don't think you would disagree that Yakupov gives us a MUCH better chance of scoring a goal. Especially a clutch goal - the few times he's been out late/in OT, he's scored or at least created some great chances.

With Dubnyk's SO record, if I'm the coach I'm going for it in OT (only Bryzgalov and Lehner have a worse save% for goalies with more than one SO, which is strange because he was actually very good last year)

[Updated on: Thu, 21 March 2013 11:34]

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593203 is a reply to message #593201 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 11:56

Adam
Messages: 12422
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Mike wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 11:30

Goose wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 14:18

But I think people are latching onto that one event and taking too much from it.

I'm not on an anti-Krueger crusade. But I do hate that he changes the lines in the 3rd when we're up by 1 or 2 or even tied, and tried to put out "responsible" combinations, which invariably leads to lots and lots of play in our own end. And I don't think it's fair to say "that one event" - Yakupov has essentially been benched all or part of the 3rd period at least 3 times now in favor of guys like Smyth and Petrell. If you believe that those guys give us a better chance of winning, that's fine, we can agree to disagree. But it was than just one event.

Goose wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 14:18

Keep in mind Yakupov is a 19-year old rookie with a quarter of a season of experience and the worst +/- on the team. I don't think that Krueger is the only coach in the league that would make the same decision, and I definitely don't think it can be used as evidence that Krueger doesn't want to win.

Of course Krueger wants to win. Hyperbole claiming otherwise is ridiculous. And I understand that as a coach it can be a bit scary to play a 19 year old kid, but he has made lots of great defensive plays the last few games. If Smyth was Datsyuk or Carbonneau, then sure, I could understand. But in my opinion, Yakupov is at least as good as Smyth and Petrell defensively. And if he gets caught, he can make up for it with his speed. It's not to say goals aren't going to be scored because he makes a mistake, but his learning curve on the other side of the puck (to my eye anyway) has been steep.

So to me, defensively, it's close to a wash. MAYBE Smyth or Petrell might be a touch better. But I don't think you would disagree that Yakupov gives us a MUCH better chance of scoring a goal. Especially a clutch goal - the few times he's been out late/in OT, he's scored or at least created some great chances.

With Dubnyk's SO record, if I'm the coach I'm going for it in OT (only Bryzgalov and Lehner have a worse save% for goalies with more than one SO, which is strange because he was actually very good last year)

Few points to add to this:

- Regarding getting outplayed and hemmed in our zone, I think that is more than just a third period thing. I saw a quick analysis yesterday on why the Ducks are playing above their head. It talked about their Corsi number (based on shots attempted for and against) and Fenwick number (based on shots directed less blocked shots for and against) and showed they were in the bottom half of the league on both. There is a historical correlation between teams with high Corsi & Fenwick and winning games (slightly stronger with Corsi). Anyhow, on that analysis, I noticed that the Oilers were ranked 29th. We're getting dominated right now too often. Outshot, outchanced, and out-possessioned. It is easy to blame the defence for that, but I think our highly touted offence has to take a lot of the blame too. We rarely hem other team in their zones for a full shift. We get most of our chances off the rush, and if that doesn't go in, then we're seeing the other team regain control and advance the puck out of their zone way too easily. I expect some of that is experience, but some is just not winning races and not winning battles. The numbers suggest that either A) we're due for a correction soon or B) we're going to have to play better than we have to legitimately get in to a playoff race.

- I'm all for the Oilers throwing caution to the wind in overtime. Play all the top offensive guys, play them lots, and play with 3 forwards and 1 d-man. I think you're right that Dubnyk struggles at the shoot-out. Given time, shooters are picking the corner on him and he's not making that save. I think that he's getting a little bit too much in his head thinking about it too, which leads to goals like the Boyle one last night where he bit hard on the fake.

- I like shortening the bench in tight games...but you're right. I want the players sat to be the fourth liners, not the dynamic scorers. Playing wing, it's going to be rare that Yakupov is going to directly cause a goal against because if he gives up the puck or fails to make a clear or gets burned by an attacker, well, there should still be three guys behind him. If nothing else, plays like that provide an excellent learning opportunity in the video room the next day. I think that I'm absolutely on side with you on that, and not to speak for him, but I would guess from his posts that Goose is too. That said, NHL coaches will not uncommonly do what Krueger has done. Remember that Joe Thornton in his first year had the leash on him so tightly that he managed just seven points. Of course, he also hated his first year coach (Pat Burns, I believe?). Not to say that's right, but it's what probably the bulk of the coaches in the NHL would do. I think the issue comes when it's suggested in a game like last night that the Oilers were coached to play not to lose. The urgency the team showed throughout the third period clearly says otherwise, and while I don't agree with all his decisions, I think they were pretty understandable and shouldn't have been as controversial as some posters are suggesting in this thread.

- I disagree with you that Smyth and Petrell aren't better defensive options by a fair ways than Yakupov, but also think that's understandable in that he's a 19 year old rookie. They SHOULD be better in their own end at covering NHL players. I don't think I'd play them ahead of him at critical times in the game because of that, but I do think they have him beat there.

"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 ~~#FireChiarelli~~ #FireBobbyNicks #FireKeithGretzky #FireKenHolland ~~#FireTippett~~

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593204 is a reply to message #593203 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 12:04

mightyreasoner
Messages: 2363
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

Adam wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 11:56

- I disagree with you that Smyth and Petrell aren't better defensive options by a fair ways than Yakupov, but also think that's understandable in that he's a 19 year old rookie. They SHOULD be better in their own end at covering NHL players. I don't think I'd play them ahead of him at critical times in the game because of that, but I do think they have him beat there.

I agree with Adam here. Smyth and Petrell are better defensively - and should be. But Paajarvi's no slouch in his own end, and so if you play Yakupov with Paajarvi, Smid, and Petry, the defensive end *should* be covered okay.

The biggest problem I have with benching Yakupov in favor of say, Petrell, is that it sends a bad message to the team. To me, it says that you don't believe you can win the game, or at the very least, can't win the game in regulation/OT. As soon as you put Petrell in over Yakupov, how can you not read that as trying to protect a tie/lead? On the other hand, if you send out Yakupov instead of Petrell, it sends a clear message that you are going for it, that the coach believes you have what it takes to win, and to win in regulation.

We sometimes talk about killer instinct. I think that's how you develop it. You have the confidence that you can go out there and bury a team. It's two very different messages you can send to the team, and in the long run, having that confidence to go out, respond, and win games is a much better attitude for the team to carry than trying to get by.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593205 is a reply to message #593204 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 12:12

Mike
Messages: 4027
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

4 Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 15:04

Adam wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 11:56

- I disagree with you that Smyth and Petrell aren't better defensive options by a fair ways than Yakupov, but also think that's understandable in that he's a 19 year old rookie. They SHOULD be better in their own end at covering NHL players. I don't think I'd play them ahead of him at critical times in the game because of that, but I do think they have him beat there.

I agree with Adam here. Smyth and Petrell are better defensively - and should be. But Paajarvi's no slouch in his own end, and so if you play Yakupov with Paajarvi, Smid, and Petry, the defensive end *should* be covered okay.

The biggest problem I have with benching Yakupov in favor of say, Petrell, is that it sends a bad message to the team. To me, it says that you don't believe you can win the game, or at the very least, can't win the game in regulation/OT. As soon as you put Petrell in over Yakupov, how can you not read that as trying to protect a tie/lead? On the other hand, if you send out Yakupov instead of Petrell, it sends a clear message that you are going for it, that the coach believes you have what it takes to win, and to win in regulation.

We sometimes talk about killer instinct. I think that's how you develop it. You have the confidence that you can go out there and bury a team. It's two very different messages you can send to the team, and in the long run, having that confidence to go out, respond, and win games is a much better attitude for the team to carry than trying to get by.

Exactly. In tennis terms, it would be the difference between sitting back and waiting for an unforced error as opposed to smashing a forehand winner down the line.

Again - if Yakupov is being sat for Gagner, Hall, RNH - then fine. But getting sat for Smyth and Petrell is terrible.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593147 is a reply to message #593129 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 22:51

K.McC#24
Messages: 5255
Registered: March 2004
Location: ALBERTA

5 Cups

Mike wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 22:36

I just broke a glass on my desk... angryfire

angryfire

That's a huge 2 points that we've lost against San Jose and Detroit with 2 goal leads in the 3rd.

Win or lose, that was some entertaining hockey to watch.

This team needs to learn how to:

1) Put the puck on net
2) How to clear their own zone

Smyth is done.

Why no Yak in OT?

One thing that puzzled me tonight was the inability of the Oilers to figure out how to enter the offensive zone when they outnumber the opposition on a PP. All kinds of opportunity on the PP tonight but a very weak effort save for the one goal.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593153 is a reply to message #593147 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 22:55

Skookum Jim
Messages: 7170
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

6 Cups

K.McC#24 wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 21:51

Mike wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 22:36

I just broke a glass on my desk... angryfire

angryfire

That's a huge 2 points that we've lost against San Jose and Detroit with 2 goal leads in the 3rd.

Win or lose, that was some entertaining hockey to watch.

This team needs to learn how to:

1) Put the puck on net
2) How to clear their own zone

Smyth is done.

Why no Yak in OT?

One thing that puzzled me tonight was the inability of the Oilers to figure out how to enter the offensive zone when they outnumber the opposition on a PP. All kinds of opportunity on the PP tonight but a very weak effort save for the one goal.

That, and nobody going to the net when a guy brings in the puck along the boards, he hangs on to it waiting for help, then its just him against 3 converging SJ guys, no puck support, where it inevitably gets coughed up and back down in our zone, wasting another 30 seconds. Or the guy rings it around the SJ net, .. to nobody.

McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593155 is a reply to message #593153 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 22:57

Mike
Messages: 4027
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

4 Cups

Skookum Jim wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 01:55

Or the guy rings it around the SJ net, .. to nobody.

Love that one. It arouses me every time. Almost as much as the ring around the boards in our own end.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593163 is a reply to message #593155 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 23:06

Skookum Jim
Messages: 7170
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

6 Cups

Mike wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 21:57

Skookum Jim wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 01:55

Or the guy rings it around the SJ net, .. to nobody.

Love that one. It arouses me every time. Almost as much as the ring around the boards in our own end.

In our own end it actually seemed to work, except the winger is so freaking weak on his stick, that the pinching D-men appeared to have a 90% success rate. Or the puck gets stopped, and the Oiler D-man, Petry, or Whitney, steps up to support, and fails to get it out as well, weak on stick, resulting in the classic double fail.

One guy that does execute in clearing the puck is Fistric, guy is strong. I loved how he manhandled Thornton. Joe isn't used to that result.

McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593168 is a reply to message #593163 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 23:17

mightyreasoner
Messages: 2363
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 23:06

Mike wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 21:57

Skookum Jim wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 01:55

Or the guy rings it around the SJ net, .. to nobody.

Love that one. It arouses me every time. Almost as much as the ring around the boards in our own end.

In our own end it actually seemed to work, except the winger is so freaking weak on his stick, that the pinching D-men appeared to have a 90% success rate. Or the puck gets stopped, and the Oiler D-man, Petry, or Whitney, steps up to support, and fails to get it out as well, weak on stick, resulting in the classic double fail.

I get the impression that you aren't the biggest Petry fan, but you might be looking for something that just isn't there.

McCurdy did this piece on Oilers zone exits among defensemen, and Petry leads everyone - and it's not close.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/02/21/jeff-petry-carry ing-the-load-as-oilers-top-puck-mule-on-the-back-end-and-wev e-got-the-zone-exit-numbers-to-prove-it/

There are some gaps in Petry's game and areas where he's green and needs to mature still. But he's probably our very best at getting the puck out of our end.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593172 is a reply to message #593168 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 23:31

Skookum Jim
Messages: 7170
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

6 Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 22:17

Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 23:06

Mike wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 21:57

Skookum Jim wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 01:55

Or the guy rings it around the SJ net, .. to nobody.

Love that one. It arouses me every time. Almost as much as the ring around the boards in our own end.

In our own end it actually seemed to work, except the winger is so freaking weak on his stick, that the pinching D-men appeared to have a 90% success rate. Or the puck gets stopped, and the Oiler D-man, Petry, or Whitney, steps up to support, and fails to get it out as well, weak on stick, resulting in the classic double fail.

I get the impression that you aren't the biggest Petry fan, but you might be looking for something that just isn't there.

McCurdy did this piece on Oilers zone exits among defensemen, and Petry leads everyone - and it's not close.

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/02/21/jeff-petry-carry ing-the-load-as-oilers-top-puck-mule-on-the-back-end-and-wev e-got-the-zone-exit-numbers-to-prove-it/

There are some gaps in Petry's game and areas where he's green and needs to mature still. But he's probably our very best at getting the puck out of our end.

A Zone clear is easy if no one is on you, but I consistently see him unable to clear the puck out under pressure. I'd like to see a stat with "zone clears under pressure" and see where he stands.
If he's ogoing to be on our top D pairing, I expect a lot from him, this is true, he just has to learn to bear down, the guy is huge, no excuse.

Also, in that same article, if you account for zone exits per time on ice, Whitney leads. And I don't consider him playing that well defensively, I think the stats can be misleading, and doesn't reflect a "zone clear in a scrum" in any event. Boy has his flaws, and needs to work on them.

[Updated on: Wed, 20 March 2013 23:45]

McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593198 is a reply to message #593172 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 10:53

Suomalainen
Messages: 2769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Boulder, CO

2 Cups

Hard to take anything McCurdy says seriously after his grades last night

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/03/21/edmonton-oilers- player-grades-charity-begins-at-home-as-oilers-prove-yet-aga in-vs-sharks/

I guess he didn't see Smyth's "work" along the boards for the tying goal...

97.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593130 is a reply to message #593074 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 22:36

mikeisthird
Messages: 310
Registered: November 2006
Location: Stony Plain

No Cups

Three minutes killed us. As usual, it feels like the Oilers deserve better but can't show up to make it happen.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593135 is a reply to message #593074 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 22:40

Moog
Messages: 88
Registered: January 2007
Location: Burlington

No Cups

There's no chance now with this team at this time unless some big changes happen golf

golf

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593140 is a reply to message #593135 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 22:43

nullterm
Messages: 5262
Registered: July 2007
Location: Port Moody, BC

5 Cups

The silver lining...

Oilers on a five game point streak going 3-0-2 since Horcoff returned.

8 out of possible 10 points, 1.6 points/game.

Baby steps.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593145 is a reply to message #593140 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 22:46

Moog
Messages: 88
Registered: January 2007
Location: Burlington

No Cups

It's been a long crawl since Pronger left faint

faint

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593148 is a reply to message #593145 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 22:51

Skookum Jim
Messages: 7170
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

6 Cups

Moog wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 21:46

It's been a long crawl since Pronger left faint

faint

Crawl? more like a long sit on a port-a-potty! LOL!

McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593150 is a reply to message #593145 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 22:52

Mike
Messages: 4027
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

4 Cups

What sucks is that by the time puck drops on Saturday night, we will at least 5 points out of the playoffs. Even winning in OT would have been huge.

If would have closed out this game and the Detroit game, we would be 7th in the West with 31 points. I know that's a lot of what ifs, but I don't think expecting 2 points when you are up 2 in the 3rd is too much to ask.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593157 is a reply to message #593150 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 23:00

Skookum Jim
Messages: 7170
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

6 Cups

Mike wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 21:52

What sucks is that by the time puck drops on Saturday night, we will at least 5 points out of the playoffs. Even winning in OT would have been huge.

If would have closed out this game and the Detroit game, we would be 7th in the West with 31 points. I know that's a lot of what ifs, but I don't think expecting 2 points when you are up 2 in the 3rd is too much to ask.

No its not. No team intensity, team just seems to get softer with a lead, they play well to start a game. Maybe they should keep snorting the ammonia capsules Smyth was doing to start the game, start passing it down the bench at the start of the 3rd.

McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593161 is a reply to message #593157 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 23:05

Adam
Messages: 12422
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 23:00

Mike wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 21:52

What sucks is that by the time puck drops on Saturday night, we will at least 5 points out of the playoffs. Even winning in OT would have been huge.

If would have closed out this game and the Detroit game, we would be 7th in the West with 31 points. I know that's a lot of what ifs, but I don't think expecting 2 points when you are up 2 in the 3rd is too much to ask.

No its not. No team intensity, team just seems to get softer with a lead, they play well to start a game. Maybe they should keep snorting the ammonia capsules Smyth was doing to start the game, start passing it down the bench at the start of the 3rd.

I don't think anything Smyth is doing right now should be held up as an example of what this team needs to do.

"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 ~~#FireChiarelli~~ #FireBobbyNicks #FireKeithGretzky #FireKenHolland ~~#FireTippett~~

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593171 is a reply to message #593140 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 23:29

E-townchamps
Messages: 375
Registered: December 2003
Location: St. OILbert, AB

No Cups

nullterm wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 22:43

The silver lining...

Oilers on a five game point streak going 3-0-2 since Horcoff returned.

8 out of possible 10 points, 1.6 points/game.

Baby steps.

except we're giving away points to teams WE ARE CHASING

I'd much rather have those SO/OT losses to Chi or Nas...and not SJ and Det

Hall-RNH-Eberle...future #1 line

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593173 is a reply to message #593171 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 23:42

nullterm
Messages: 5262
Registered: July 2007
Location: Port Moody, BC

5 Cups

E-townchamps wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 22:29

nullterm wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 22:43

The silver lining...

Oilers on a five game point streak going 3-0-2 since Horcoff returned.

8 out of possible 10 points, 1.6 points/game.

Baby steps.

except we're giving away points to teams WE ARE CHASING

I'd much rather have those SO/OT losses to Chi or Nas...and not SJ and Det

Considering last season (and quite a few prior) we weren't even in the chase at all, I would have loved the W, but I'll take the overall improvement.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593137 is a reply to message #593074 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 22:40

K.McC#24
Messages: 5255
Registered: March 2004
Location: ALBERTA

5 Cups

Well, at least Krueger & the boys preserved that loser point.

Very disappointing result, the Oilers were up 3-1 in the 3rd, just didn't go in for the kill, opened the door and let SJ back in the game to eventually win. We've seen this before, and very recently.

Yakupov did NOT see the ice in OT, not sure what that's all about.

Dubnyk had terrible rebound & puck control most of the night, that GTG was a bad one, and the other 2 were a result of losing track of the puck when a cover & whistle were a possibility. Not good.

The only way for this team to win is to play with urgency. They didn't for most of the night tonight, yet somehow found themselves up 3-1. Dumb penalty by Whitney, PPG, and this result was predictable.

Just a crap result when the team has a 3-1 lead with 14 & change remaining in the 3rd.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593149 is a reply to message #593137 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 22:51

Jimmer
Messages: 179
Registered: March 2007

No Cups

So tired of Whitney.

(1) Out of position for the first goal
(2) Took a penalty that led to a goal

Maybe our chances of making the playoffs would increase if he played for a team we were trying to pass in the standings.

Time to go Whitney...

“I wanna kiss you. I couldn't care less about the team struggguulliing…We're looking to make a noise now and ... I wanna kiss you!” – Joe Namath.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593165 is a reply to message #593074 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 23:09

mightyreasoner
Messages: 2363
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

2 Cups

I know everyone is frustrated with the loss and blowing a 2-goal lead. That should bother the team.

But to be honest, I thought the Oilers played a pretty good game, and probably deserved to win this one. They fell asleep at the beginning of the third, but carried the play for the last 10 minutes of the third and overtime.

You probably can blame the powerplay for the loss as much as anything tonight. We had a chance to bury them and instead we killed the momentum.

Thoughts:

- Horcoff is playing like we all hoped he would play. His contract will never be justified and may cause problems; he may get a bit of a free pass from the media; but right now I really like what he is bringing. In the last handful of games I've seen him stepping in when guys were going after Hall, throwing the body on the forcheck, and tonight scoring a goal by crashing the net. He's been a great checking center for us, better than the past few years. It's been nice.

- My favorite Oiler to watch right now is Magnus Paajarvi. He is honestly getting better every single game. He is becoming a great player right before our eyes. He is learning to use his body to carry the play, and he was a threat to score all night. He was instrumental on Gagner's goal, and is reading the game very well. The Oilers made the right call holding onto this guy; he's going to be a player for us.

- On the other end of the spectrum, I have been remarkably underwhelmed with Teemu Hartikainen. I've never jumped on board with this guy like a lot of people in the city seemed to (advocating moving Hemsky because Hartikainen was in the system), but this season I've been fairly unimpressed. Perhaps he just needs more time, but I think his ceiling isn't all that high. He's extremely strong, but I just see shades of Georges Laraque offense in his game - cycle the puck back and forth and back and forth along the boards and then lose it. At least Laraque sometimes got it to the net; I rarely see that from Hartikainen. The Oilers really should send him to OKC and be carrying a center as the 13th forward.

- Dubnyk definitely is vulnerable with shots coming from the top of the left hand circle, especially going short side. There's been a lot of those recently. You have to think teams are going to recognize this soon, or perhaps have already.

- Loved seeing Yakupov throw the body and bring the building to life. Definitely didn't have a problem with the players used in OT, but I have to confess, I wouldn't have minded seeing Yakupov with a shift or two. Guy scores big goals; might as well let him go for it in a game like this.

- I know this will be controversial, but I much prefer Hall with Hemsky than I do Hall with Eberle. From my view, Hall just looks more comfortable when he is with Hemsky. Hemsky is skilled enough to work with in the offensive, but with Hemsky and Horcoff on that line, it's almost like Hall feels free to just go play his game instead of focusing on being the best defensive player on his line. He also seems to drive the net more often rather than cycling (which isn't where he is strongest). I don't know. He just seems to be a different (better) player when with Hemmer, more himself, more comfortable in playing his game and driving the play.

- I thought Smyth was okay. Not awesome, but for playing out of position and for playing up a line, he was on the right side of the puck all night.

- Nice to see Jonesy get one. He's been due. Too bad his former teammate (Tommy Wingels) felt the need to match him.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593166 is a reply to message #593165 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 23:13

belle88
Messages: 119
Registered: January 2009
Location: Toronto

No Cups

I like Krueger don't like winning in overtime so I'm fine that Yakupov hasn't been used in overtime all season unless Oilers get a powerplay.

You have a one shot scorer, who the coach says "best one timer i've ever seen" but doesn't see the ice in overtime ever???

Tired of playing the last 10 minutes to get to overtime. Then playing the 5 minutes in overtime to get to shootout, and hope to get lucky in shootout.

Same story every night in 1-2 goal games.

And yes Whitney was back to his earlier play this season, just brutal.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593170 is a reply to message #593165 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 23:26

Skookum Jim
Messages: 7170
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

6 Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 22:09

I know everyone is frustrated with the loss and blowing a 2-goal lead. That should bother the team.

But to be honest, I thought the Oilers played a pretty good game, and probably deserved to win this one. They fell asleep at the beginning of the third, but carried the play for the last 10 minutes of the third and overtime.

You probably can blame the powerplay for the loss as much as anything tonight. We had a chance to bury them and instead we killed the momentum.

Thoughts:

- Horcoff is playing like we all hoped he would play. His contract will never be justified and may cause problems; he may get a bit of a free pass from the media; but right now I really like what he is bringing. In the last handful of games I've seen him stepping in when guys were going after Hall, throwing the body on the forcheck, and tonight scoring a goal by crashing the net. He's been a great checking center for us, better than the past few years. It's been nice.

- My favorite Oiler to watch right now is Magnus Paajarvi. He is honestly getting better every single game. He is becoming a great player right before our eyes. He is learning to use his body to carry the play, and he was a threat to score all night. He was instrumental on Gagner's goal, and is reading the game very well. The Oilers made the right call holding onto this guy; he's going to be a player for us.

- On the other end of the spectrum, I have been remarkably underwhelmed with Teemu Hartikainen. I've never jumped on board with this guy like a lot of people in the city seemed to (advocating moving Hemsky because Hartikainen was in the system), but this season I've been fairly unimpressed. Perhaps he just needs more time, but I think his ceiling isn't all that high. He's extremely strong, but I just see shades of Georges Laraque offense in his game - cycle the puck back and forth and back and forth along the boards and then lose it. At least Laraque sometimes got it to the net; I rarely see that from Hartikainen. The Oilers really should send him to OKC and be carrying a center as the 13th forward.

- Dubnyk definitely is vulnerable with shots coming from the top of the left hand circle, especially going short side. There's been a lot of those recently. You have to think teams are going to recognize this soon, or perhaps have already.

- Loved seeing Yakupov throw the body and bring the building to life. Definitely didn't have a problem with the players used in OT, but I have to confess, I wouldn't have minded seeing Yakupov with a shift or two. Guy scores big goals; might as well let him go for it in a game like this.

- I know this will be controversial, but I much prefer Hall with Hemsky than I do Hall with Eberle. From my view, Hall just looks more comfortable when he is with Hemsky. Hemsky is skilled enough to work with in the offensive, but with Hemsky and Horcoff on that line, it's almost like Hall feels free to just go play his game instead of focusing on being the best defensive player on his line. He also seems to drive the net more often rather than cycling (which isn't where he is strongest). I don't know. He just seems to be a different (better) player when with Hemmer, more himself, more comfortable in playing his game and driving the play.

- I thought Smyth was okay. Not awesome, but for playing out of position and for playing up a line, he was on the right side of the puck all night.

- Nice to see Jonesy get one. He's been due. Too bad his former teammate (Tommy Wingels) felt the need to match him.

1. Agree about Harti. You see his one-man cycle machine going.. get excited .. and .... cough.. Unless he learns to do something with the puck, he won't be a regular. Doesn't seem to do much away from the puck either, or exceptionally speedy. I saw the guy cycle the puck for about minute, and went all the way from behind the SJ net, up the boards, eventually coughing it up at the blueline... and ..end of shift.

2. Talked about Dubby already. He won't be our answer in net, too static.

3. Yak was great, loved the hit, he's probably been wondering all year why nobody else does it, kid wants to win, actually takes these games serious. Good to see. Once he gets rid of the rookie jitters, and gets stronger, he'll be a force.

4. I thought Smyth was OK as well.

[Updated on: Wed, 20 March 2013 23:27]

McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593169 is a reply to message #593074 ]	Wed, 20 March 2013 23:26

g2k
Messages: 8492
Registered: January 2003
Location: The Hood

6 Cups

How many shifts did Yakupov have after he had that great shift where he nailed 2 Sharks and got the building roaring?

I'm asking because I don't know.

#firebob #screwitjustselltheteam #ownerisacreep

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593175 is a reply to message #593169 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 00:03

Mike
Messages: 4027
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

4 Cups

g2k wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 02:26

How many shifts did Yakupov have after he had that great shift where he nailed 2 Sharks and got the building roaring?

I'm asking because I don't know.

The answer is 0. That's right - after playing one of his best shifts of the year, certainly of that game, he didn't see the ice again. Maybe Ralph doesn't like hard hits or loud buildings? confused2

confused2

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593178 is a reply to message #593175 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 00:47

Skookum Jim
Messages: 7170
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

6 Cups

Mike wrote on Wed, 20 March 2013 23:03

g2k wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 02:26

How many shifts did Yakupov have after he had that great shift where he nailed 2 Sharks and got the building roaring?

I'm asking because I don't know.

The answer is 0. That's right - after playing one of his best shifts of the year, certainly of that game, he didn't see the ice again. Maybe Ralph doesn't like hard hits or loud buildings? confused2

confused2

I think that was a mistake on Freddy, Yak shows his intensity on that shift, obviously here to play hard, and to win; and you don't feed off of that? A lot of coaches say they will go with the "hot" hand during the game, Yak deserved a go in OT IMHO

McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593181 is a reply to message #593178 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 01:41

Nitty_Gritty_Smytty
Messages: 221
Registered: July 2006
Location: City Of Champions

No Cups

The onus is on the players to have the capability to close out a 2 goal lead on home ice in a must win game. If they tuck their tail between their legs and start letting in weak goals not much the coach can do about that.

"Oil is thicker than blood." - The Great One #99

"I'm gonna go there, do my best to make the playoffs and win that cup...so I can bring it down here to Edmonton...because that's where my heart is." - Ryan Smyth #94

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593184 is a reply to message #593074 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 07:28

Suomalainen
Messages: 2769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Boulder, CO

2 Cups

The only thing I'll blame Krueger for is having Hemsky in the shootout. I'm sure the feeling was different down there on the bench, but I think after the third period Yakupov had, he should have been #3 - he looked like he was feeling it.

All I could do before bed was think that the Oilers would be in 7th ahead of both SJ and DET had they kept their heads. boom

boom

97.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593229 is a reply to message #593184 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 17:18

Nitty_Gritty_Smytty
Messages: 221
Registered: July 2006
Location: City Of Champions

No Cups

Suomalainen wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 07:28

The only thing I'll blame Krueger for is having Hemsky in the shootout. I'm sure the feeling was different down there on the bench, but I think after the third period Yakupov had, he should have been #3 - he looked like he was feeling it.

All I could do before bed was think that the Oilers would be in 7th ahead of both SJ and DET had they kept their heads. boom

boom

Can't even blame him for that, goalie coach Fred Chabot selects the shooters.

"Oil is thicker than blood." - The Great One #99

"I'm gonna go there, do my best to make the playoffs and win that cup...so I can bring it down here to Edmonton...because that's where my heart is." - Ryan Smyth #94

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593242 is a reply to message #593229 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 20:27

Suomalainen
Messages: 2769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Boulder, CO

2 Cups

Nitty_Gritty_Smytty wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 17:18

Can't even blame him for that, goalie coach Fred Chabot selects the shooters.

Yikes.

97.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593191 is a reply to message #593074 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 09:36

Dr. Oil
Messages: 1254
Registered: June 2003
Location: BC

1 Cup

Just so disappointing given the "what-ifs" of the standings this morning. You have to give some credit to San Jose though. Most teams would have been put to pasture with Jonesy's goal in the third but they really didn't quit. Maybe it's because they knew the Oilers are vulnerable, but in any case their continued efforts were impressive. When Jones scored that, I started to have a great feeling about our team. Shame on me. I should know by now that Oilers fans are not allowed to be happy.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593196 is a reply to message #593191 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 10:44

Rocksteady
Messages: 2351
Registered: March 2007

2 Cups

Dr. Oil wrote on Thu, 21 March 2013 09:36

Just so disappointing given the "what-ifs" of the standings this morning. You have to give some credit to San Jose though. Most teams would have been put to pasture with Jonesy's goal in the third but they really didn't quit. Maybe it's because they knew the Oilers are vulnerable, but in any case their continued efforts were impressive. When Jones scored that, I started to have a great feeling about our team. Shame on me. I should know by now that Oilers fans are not allowed to be happy.

Agreed, if anything the oilers should take note on how San Jose never quit even when they were down by two goals. Horcoff is playing his best hockey since his 5.5 contract signing.

The team lacks focus to sew up the game, that includes the coach, playing not to lose is fatal and we, as fans, have been shown that time and time again..

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

Generally Disappointed.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: San Jose @ Edmonton (Game #29) [message #593207 is a reply to message #593074 ]	Thu, 21 March 2013 12:22

Raggamuffin Rascal
Messages: 497
Registered: June 2007

No Cups

Sometimes I feel like Krueger is doing the best he can with what he has. Win or lose this one, I think it's absolutely unacceptable that we only had 2 centers. Ryan Smyth is not a C and should not have been used like one for however many games this year. This is an example of management's incompetence in building a well-rounded team with the necessary pieces required to win.

I get that guys are injured but injuries happen all the time. It's the GMs job to find a way to adapt and deal with that.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Pages (3): [ « < 1 2 3 > »]

Previous Topic:	Pregame: St. Louis @ Edmonton (Game #30)
Next Topic:	Lowe at the MIT Sloan / Oilogosphere

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