OilFans.com :: Fan Forum: Oilers => Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42)

Guest

This day on November 22
Acquired: Kari Takko (1990)
Departed: Bruce Bell (1990)

Happy Birthday To: SAE_10W30, Radville, Flavs93

OILERS INFO OILFANS
Friday, Nov 22, 2024 10:31 PM MT

F.A.Q.

Members

Home

Oilers » Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42)

Pages (2): [1 2 > »]

Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816376]	Mon, 09 January 2023 23:00

OilFans
Messages: 1558
Registered: February 2006
Location: Edmonton

1 Cup

6 Final

Score Prediction
Login To See Your Results
No one predicted this!

Edmonton to win: 0%
Los Angeles to win: 0%
0 entries View all picks Leaderboard

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816378 is a reply to message #816376 ]	Mon, 09 January 2023 23:19

Kr55
Messages: 10770
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

The classic 1 period of real effort act

https://media.tenor.com/GIOO2RUMoJcAAAAM/thanks-for-coming-thank-you.gif

"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013

"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015

5 x $5,000,000

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816381 is a reply to message #816376 ]	Mon, 09 January 2023 23:22

g2k
Messages: 2840
Registered: January 2003
Location: The Hood

2 Cups

I blame 97 and 29 for not being able to come back and save the team in the 3rd period.

Be better Connor and Leon. This team and it’s management relies on you guys to fix things.

#firebob #screwitjustselltheteam #ownerisacreep

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816382 is a reply to message #816381 ]	Mon, 09 January 2023 23:24

HamBlaster
Messages: 989
Registered: June 2007

No Cups

Burn it all down.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816383 is a reply to message #816376 ]	Mon, 09 January 2023 23:24

Hemmer2Eberle
Messages: 73
Registered: March 2010
Location: St. Albert, Alberta

No Cups

Is anyone else exhausted? Or is it just me?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816385 is a reply to message #816383 ]	Mon, 09 January 2023 23:30

HamBlaster
Messages: 989
Registered: June 2007

No Cups

Very exhausted. Junk effort after junk effort... rinse and repeat.

Tear it all down and build a funeral pyre out of carnage. This team isn't good enough, and it's not even by a small margin... they are light years away from being a contender.

Really looking forward to listening to the BS post-game clips. I'm sure Woody will downplay the significance of the loss and talk about some good things he saw... Nurse will look like he has no time to talk to peons, and McDavid or Drai will look supremely disinterested.

The leadership of this team is a train wreck.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816386 is a reply to message #816376 ]	Mon, 09 January 2023 23:31

inverno76
Messages: 2343
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...

2 Cups

If you’re going to go down, at least go down swinging. ✅

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816387 is a reply to message #816383 ]	Mon, 09 January 2023 23:31

watchman
Messages: 1412
Registered: October 2019
Location: River City

1 Cup

I really didn't expect to win... I also didn't expect to give up 4 PP goals against. Two, maybe. But not 4. And I didn't expect to go ZERO for 6? on our own PP.

The sooner KANE gets back the better.

Call me crazy, but this team should be able to win the last 3 of this road trip and put this debacle behind them. icon_nod

...this time, it's for real (isn't it?).

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816388 is a reply to message #816383 ]	Mon, 09 January 2023 23:36

Leia
Messages: 410
Registered: May 2003
Location: England

No Cups

I don't know what to say, we've got the talent, we've got a coach that OK, geez even on paper the netminding seems better than last year and yet we are playing as badly as we did during 10 years post 2006 finals appearance.

I'm scratching my head at what is going wrong with this team. We have enough to get the play-off's at which point Kane will be back and hopefully contributing. Win the first series and we can build on that, but till then I think we are in for a bumpy ride emotionally watching this team.

Take me home, country road
to the place where I belong
to Alberta, to see the Oilers
take me home, country road

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816389 is a reply to message #816385 ]	Mon, 09 January 2023 23:50

Hemmer2Eberle
Messages: 73
Registered: March 2010
Location: St. Albert, Alberta

No Cups

HamBlaster wrote on Mon, 09 January 2023 23:30

We are going to lose 2 of the best talents this team has ever seen, and it's starting to become extremely depressing. That disinterest you speak of, will eventually lead to these guys just giving up on the franchise.

And as a fan of this team, since I was just a little kid, I fully get it. It's emotionally draining to keep seeing this year after year. 30 years of being obsessed with this team, and now I'm starting to weigh my options before puck drop each night, on if I wanna watch another disaster of a game, or take care of that stain on my garage floor I was meaning to deal with when we had warmer weather...

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816390 is a reply to message #816387 ]	Mon, 09 January 2023 23:50

Hemmer2Eberle
Messages: 73
Registered: March 2010
Location: St. Albert, Alberta

No Cups

Like me, you just expected better, and we both learned tonight that it was wishful thinking.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816391 is a reply to message #816388 ]	Mon, 09 January 2023 23:52

Hemmer2Eberle
Messages: 73
Registered: March 2010
Location: St. Albert, Alberta

No Cups

It feels like a curse at this point. And if it is, what's the damn curse, so we can call up a priest and get this dealt with.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816392 is a reply to message #816391 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 00:11

K.McC#24
Messages: 2834
Registered: March 2004
Location: ALBERTA

2 Cups

Hemmer2Eberle wrote on Mon, 09 January 2023 23:52

It feels like a curse at this point. And if it is, what's the damn curse, so we can call up a priest and get this dealt with.

I think for curses you have to sacrifice a chicken. If ìts demons, maybe a priest.

I thought I'd do the team a solid and quit watching after 4-1 and declaring the game over. It has worked but not this time.

Goaltending this game was pretty bad, but special teams was craptastic. Zone exits, breakout passes were awful though 2. Some pretty poor decisions taking penalties, and had the kill been able to kill and you get a couple on 6 pp ops, this is a rough W instead of garbage.

Bouchard came through this one at +3?

Well, I guess Soupy is starting the next 2 because Skinner is back to Edmonton for his baby. Hope he's good enough to finish the next 2. Should the Oilers be favored against Anaheim and SJ? confused2

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816396 is a reply to message #816386 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 04:52

tardigrade81
Messages: 2262
Registered: November 2022
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan

2 Cups

We are a really bad team right now. Holy man

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816397 is a reply to message #816396 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 05:14

tardigrade81
Messages: 2262
Registered: November 2022
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan

2 Cups

The good news is we have Anaheim and San Jose coming up which should be two wins. Hoping we remain competitive and floating around that wild card spot till Kane is back which should help the offense out a lot

The bad news is…. We are back to having to score 4 plus every game to win now. Skinner has not been good, the defense is horrific and Campbell is Campbell. It’s just not practical to expect to win every game 5-4 or 6-5…. Not sure what the answer is right now, we look terrible.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816398 is a reply to message #816397 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 05:54

NZ Oiler Fan
Messages: 1189
Registered: October 2006
Location: Kensington, PEI

1 Cup

I guess the one good thing about 11:30pm puck drops is that I don't feel obliged to stay up and watch the games. Doesn't sound like I missed anything of note.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816399 is a reply to message #816398 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 07:29

Mike
Messages: 1397
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

1 Cup

NZ Oiler Fan wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 08:54

I guess the one good thing about 11:30pm puck drops is that I don't feel obliged to stay up and watch the games. Doesn't sound like I missed anything of note.

LOL - yeah, no chance I was catching that one live.

So here we sit, past the midway mark of the season pretty much on the outside looking in. I mean we're in 8th at the moment, but NSH is 1 point behind with 3 games in hand, and Colorado 2 points back with 4 games in hand. Even the Blues are only 2 back with a game in hand.

In the division, Seattle is 5 points up with 3 games in hand, the Kings 9 points up with 2 more GP, and Vegas 11 points up in the same number of GP. Even

A couple of posters got chastised at the start of the season for suggesting we could miss the playoffs. I think they're owed apologies. Not saying we won't make it in, but right now, depending on the site, we are anywhere from 45%-55% to make the playoffs. We've only won 21 of 42 games. boom

When Kane comes back, if he doesn't have any lingering issues, that should certainly be a boost, but even if he hits the ground running and is at 100% day one, it's still not enough.

Not sure what the answer is, but I would start at the top. Show Nicholson and Holland and their cronies the door and go from there. No way would I let Holland ride out his final year. That would be almost as crazy as letting a GM sign a stupid contract a couple of days before firing him.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816402 is a reply to message #816399 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 08:43

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Pretty tough to win a game when you take 7 penalties, even tougher when you give up 4 pp goals. Then you pile on the best PP in the NHL can't score a single goal in 6 tries against one of the leagues worst PK's.

The team didn't come out to play which stuns me but I shouldn't be surprised anymore. I find it hilarious that fans on twitter are screaming about Holland trading for Chychrun like that will magically fix all their problems. I am fine to trade for the Chychrun. I think the price is way too much but they need another dman. That being said, you can trade for Makar and it doesn't fix the Oilers problem. The problem is and has been for years. It's been the same problem with multiple coaches and different GM's. The problem is the main core of the Oilers do not play winning hockey. They play to score points.

As much as I love watching McD, he plays to score points. His job in his mind and he has said it, he's paid to score. So that's what he does and that is what his mindset is. He's on this team to score. He's never scored 50, so this year he's decided he will score 50. He probably decided he wants a Richard trophy. COOL! I am looking forward to the day he decides to play winning hockey. Same as Leon. His boy McD scores a ton and he doesn't want to be showed up so he plays to score as well.

Those 2 don't care about defense. All you have to do is look at their +/-. YES, I know it's not a great stat because you can get a + or - just by stepping on the ice and doing nothing but it shows a trend especially for those 2 because those 2 are the big dogs and when they are on the ice, 95% of the time they are involved in the play good or bad. McD +1, Leon +3. The fact those 2 have such a BRUTAL +/- when they score as much as they do just shows how little they care 5 on 5 defensively. Next guy and main leader on the team, Nuge. -5.

Am I saying it's all those 3 fault? No but in my opinion, they play a big factor because they are the main 3 forwards, they play A TON and when your 3 main guys don't give a crap about defense, why should anyone else.

So yes pay whatever it costs and go get yourself a dman whoever that guy is but does it fix everything? NO! Could it help for a few plays? Sure it can but unless the guy can play the entire game, until the team decides to 100% commit to playing team defense, it won't help that much. Playing team defense might mean that the big boys don't score as much. It might mean they don't score as many highlight reel goals seen on TV. Playing defense is hard work and lots of times not anywhere near as fun as scoring goals. But it's necessary. So fire the coach, GM, Nicholson, swap out whatever D you want, change out the bottom 6, do all of that. Until the big boys change their mindset and play winning hockey every single game, it won't get much better. Championship teams play good, sound winning hockey all the time. They still score goals but just scoring isn't the only focus. They typically don't take unnecessary chances especially late in games and at times the stars know they have to sacrifice offense to win. Playing sound team defense for championship teams stars are your star and goes all the way to the 12th forward and every dman.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816403 is a reply to message #816402 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 09:49

Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 08:43

Are you really blaming this on McDavid???

It's coaching. It's management. It's the systems they employ.

Some of that may be over-empowering the star players - the Oilers still love the core and non-core thing, even if they (fortunately) don't say it out loud all the time any more - but that's still on coaching and management.

Someone pointed out on twitter yesterday that the bottom several defencemen in the NHL on turnovers are all Oilers or Canadiens. That is not a coincidence. The system is seriously flawed. There's been some good video work done by a couple of people (I believe @bcurlock is one) showing that the Oilers system tries to create a fast break with everyone jumping right off a won faceoff in the defensive zone, but it's ineffective and too often results in turnovers because they're forcing long, difficult passes. Again, that's not on the stars - when it happens over and over again, then it's the system and that should be adjusted.

And it actually hurts the stars when it comes to point production. McDavid's 5v5 numbers are pedestrian, because this system sucks and it doesn't use our advantages to full value. The scary thing about all this is that a good coach and system don't hold McDavid back from getting more points - they provide him with more chances and more offensive zone time at even strength, so maybe his numbers are even more crooked.

I am frustrated with Woodcroft. I thought we saw some real promise with him in the regular season last year. I thought he wasn't great in the playoffs, and made some serious mistakes that you wondered if weren't pushed on him from above, and then this year? He's gone full McLellan or Tippett. It's disappointing.

Holland and Nicholson? Well, when you make old failures the leaders of an organization, pay them huge money and are just okay with their failings for years? It's toxic to culture and the whole organization under them is bound to suffer. To this day, the Oilers management spends more time and effort making sure that the media don't write nasty stories about them (the players are of course fair game) than they do trying to make sure that we're icing a competitive roster. If you want to know the biggest reason why the team is where it is? That's it right 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
#FireBobbyNicks

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816406 is a reply to message #816403 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 10:09

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 09:49

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 08:43

I am not pinning all the blame on McD but he wears some of it.

How many coaches has it been?
How many systems have they played?
What's been the reoccurring theme for YEARS?! Defense. The team sucks at defense. It's sucked at defense for years under different coaches and different systems.

Do I like everything that Woody has done this year? No.
Do I think Woody has some blame? Yes.
Do I think the roster has holes in it? Yes.
Do I think Holland has some blame? Yes.

But like I said, swap out whatever dman you want. Swap out whatever forward or 3 you want in the bottom 6. Take off 1 mill, 2 if you want off Nurse's salary. You put in 1 or 2 better bottom 6 guys so the coach feels comfortable playing them more and McD's mins go down by 2-3. Who cares. Any coach is still going to play him 20 mins a night. You could do all of that and it won't make a bit of difference. The team does not play team defense. Plain and simple.

If you watch the truly good teams, from forward 1-12 they all play team defense. Dman 1-6 all play team defense. Playing defense sucks. It's hard work, it's not fun but you have to do it. SO yes, I do place some blame on the captain because he is the CAPTIAN. He makes the most money, he gets the most playing time, he is supposed to set the standard. That's his job. When the stars on your team play hockey with the idea that defense is optional, the rest of the team follows suit.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816407 is a reply to message #816406 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 10:46

Mike
Messages: 1397
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

1 Cup

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 13:09

What's been the reoccurring theme for YEARS?!

Management? Players have been churned for almost 2 decades with the same results. It starts at the top.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816408 is a reply to message #816407 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 11:00

nullterm
Messages: 1033
Registered: July 2007
Location: Port Moody, BC

1 Cup

This team has brief one season (or half season) flashes of brilliance and then it slips thru our fingers because we couldn’t hold on to all the necessary elements that kept it together.

We lost Kane (tho he will return), Keith, Smith. I think between those three they brought a lot of elements. Keith being an extremely seasoned veteran savvy Dman who guys could leverage experience. Smith was a competitor (to a fault at times).

The run before we had Sekera (knee), Maroon, Klefbom, good Talbot, Letestu, Lucic still cared, etc. Then they were gone or fell off and we lost it again.

Pronger, Peca, Roli, etc.

This team has a moment of finally assembling something and then they lose the pieces that was holding it together.

We’re building a house out of a deck of cards in the wind.

I don’t know how a coach survives losing that amount of talent and keep things at the same repeatable level with an inferior roster.

[Updated on: Tue, 10 January 2023 11:05]

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816409 is a reply to message #816376 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 11:01

Rocksteady
Messages: 527
Registered: March 2007

No Cups

I see both RDOilers and Adam sides. I think it's a mix of column A and a bit of column B.

Systems - Yes. We have been picked apart and it reminds me of 2013 when the coaching staff thought they were smarter than the rest of the NHL. The systems, especially the defensive system isn't working. However I don't think that's on Woodcroft that would be on Manson with his unimaginative style.

McD and Drai not doing what is necessary on their defensive game. They are elite forwards and while they do their part in scoring goals their defensive game 5x5 is not great. Sacrilege to knock those two but it is what it is.

Nicholson and Holland and the executive branch of the Oilers how long have we been asking for this, but this isn't our team it's Katz's and that's where it ends. If he wants to pay money on his toy he will damn well do that.

At the end of the day how many coaches do you run through before unhitching your horse? I think we are past that point I think.

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

Generally Disappointed.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816411 is a reply to message #816403 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 11:19

CrusaderPi
Messages: 7803
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 09:49

Holland and Nicholson? Well, when you make old failures the leaders of an organization, pay them huge money and are just okay with their failings for years? It's toxic to culture and the whole organization under them is bound to suffer. To this day, the Oilers management spends more time and effort making sure that the media don't write nasty stories about them (the players are of course fair game) than they do trying to make sure that we're icing a competitive roster. If you want to know the biggest reason why the team is where it is? That's it right there.

I shouldn't be surprised, but I can't believe the free pass Holland has gotten from the media and most fans. This is fully Holland's team now and it's not very good (they'll still make the playoffs). He weathered the roster holes, poor contracts, and cap hell left by Chiarelli and created a team with roster holes, poor contracts, and cap hell. This is his team now and it's simply not good enough.

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

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816412 is a reply to message #816407 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 11:21

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Mike wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 10:46

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 13:09

What's been the reoccurring theme for YEARS?!

Management? Players have been churned for almost 2 decades with the same results. It starts at the top.

Don't think I don't place blame on management, I do but at the end of the day, it's up to the players to perform. I am not here to defend Holland, he has blame but do you think he doesn't want the team to play better defense from McD down? I bet he does. So you swap out Holland for whoever you deem as a good GM and all of a sudden it clicks in that the team has to play defense when it hasn't before?

Like I said, swap out whoever you want. Take 2 mill off Nurse's salary. Trade whatever asset you want for whatever dman you want. Does that seriously make it so all of a sudden McD, or Leonor Nuge, or whoever backchecks every shift? "Oh we have Chychrun now so I have to play defense all game long."

It's a mindset thing with these guys. Is the team roster perfect? Hell no but should it be better than it is record wise with the exact players? Hell yes it should be. They as a team have to decide playing wining hockey is the most important thing to them and I do not think it is. I think scoring goals is the most important thing to the Oilers players. Yes you need to score goals to win games but you can play crappy team hockey just like the Oilers do and still get your points just like the Oilers do.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816413 is a reply to message #816409 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 11:40

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

I am not looking for the Oilers best players to become checkers, all I am saying is they have to make subtle changes to their game to pay better attention to defense. I will give an example. In one of the Oilers PP's, I believe it was Leon who had the puck on one side of the ice halfway to the blueline in the Kings zone. He had the option to take the puck in deeper, throw it back to the dman or throw it cross ice to McD. There was a Kings player standing right in the middle of the ice ready to stop the cross ice to McD. What does Leon do? He opts for the backhanded cross ice to McD.

Now in this case he made the pass. The Kings player just missed knocking it down but if Leon is off by an inch or 2, that's a short handed breakaway. He had other safer options that could have just as easily resulted in a scoring chance but he chose the highest risk play that we have all seen not go well and result in a short handed breakaway, often times a goal against. It's small things like that that need to change that would make a HUGE difference. Those small things do not involve the GM or coach at all. Doesn't mean I let the GM or coach off the hook but it's something the players control.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816414 is a reply to message #816412 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 11:59

CrusaderPi
Messages: 7803
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 11:21

Mike wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 10:46

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 13:09

What's been the reoccurring theme for YEARS?!

Management? Players have been churned for almost 2 decades with the same results. It starts at the top.

Management builds the team. It's hard for me to look at this team and expect them to be performing much differently than they are now. Expecting individuals to magically perform well above their capabilities is setting yourself up for disappointment. So while you might not be here to defend Holland, that's what you're doing. This is his team and his team is badly flawed.

So if we swap out Holland, nothing changes. This team is this team. He built it and it's not very good. At least, not good enough to be a legitimate contender. The defense was BAD last year. Bottom half of the league in the regular season and porous in the playoffs. His solution was to hope rookies would fix the problems. That is on Holland. Expecting players who weren't good enough last year to somehow be good enough this year is foolish.

In before "we need Keith". The defense was bad last year with Keith, but even if it wasn't Holland saw him walk out the door and did nothing to fix the veteran leadership hole. That again is on Holland.

tl;dr: The problem isn't grit, caring, effort, work, fighting, or body language. The team isn't good enough to do what they're being asked to do. Holland is not a good GM. His team isn't good enough because of his decision.

Super tl;dr: Holland needs to go.

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

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816415 is a reply to message #816414 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 13:02

Kr55
Messages: 10770
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 11:59

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 11:21

Mike wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 10:46

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 13:09

What's been the reoccurring theme for YEARS?!

Management? Players have been churned for almost 2 decades with the same results. It starts at the top.

Holland's vision for this team is just completely busted and he's put himself up against the wall with the cap. How stupid was thinking "leadership" was the answer to everything, bringing in guys that only had 1-2 average performance years left in the tank with a core group that you needed to try to create 5-6 years of consistent success? Now his excuse is probably that those old guys are gone, so he's probably looking around for more old guys that won cups that he can overpay for and toss away some picks/prospects. Guy has no clue how to do anything but put on expensive bandaids. many of the "if water gets on them they immediately fall off" variety. There's no vision there aside from hoping scouting can find him elite talents late in the draft which hasn't happened for him for a long time.

We may be right on the cusp of Holland digging a hole that the next guy will take 2-3 years to get out of. And sadly, McDavid and Drai's deals expire during that time.

[Updated on: Tue, 10 January 2023 13:14]

"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013

"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015

5 x $5,000,000

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816417 is a reply to message #816415 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 13:24

CrusaderPi
Messages: 7803
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 13:02

It's total stagnation. This team lurches through a cycle of blowing money on a shiny thing, waiting for Cap Space (intentionally capitalized) to come back, and then immediately blowing it on something shiny. We knew when Chiarelli was mercifully fired that the team needed two years to fix his contract mess. The second Holland had the cash he spent it on Hymen. Now Hymen is a fine player, but was he ever what this team needed? How many 3 million plus or 5 million plus forwards does a team need? It's endless.

Holland's calling card was supposed to be his long term vision and patience. This is season four of GM Holland in Edmonton, I'll let everyone decide for themselves if this looks like year 4 of a team built by someone with vision.

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

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816419 is a reply to message #816383 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 13:37

Suomalainen
Messages: 900
Registered: May 2002
Location: Boulder, CO

No Cups

Hemmer2Eberle wrote on Mon, 09 January 2023 23:24

Is anyone else exhausted? Or is it just me?

I am.

97.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816423 is a reply to message #816417 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 13:49

Kr55
Messages: 10770
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 13:24

Kr55 wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 13:02

We hired a guy with zero patience in 2015 when we needed some good development and patience. And then when we needed a wheeler and dealer to contend ASAP to ensure 5 years down the road McDrai will want to stay, we hire the guy that was only successful by patiently waiting for elite talent to drop on his lap from the draft. Out of necessity he had to go chasing and try to do things he's never had success doing, coupled with having no real clue how to actually fix the issues with the roster which makes his job that much more impossible for him to pull off.

Hard to imagine a worse execution by Katz, Lowe and Bobby Burgers.

And now we're at the point where I'm not sure there is a person alive that could fix this team in 2-3 years. And it HAS to be fixed in a couple years in a big way.

[Updated on: Tue, 10 January 2023 13:52]

"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013

"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015

5 x $5,000,000

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816427 is a reply to message #816423 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 15:11

Dragon_Matt
Messages: 766
Registered: January 2009
Location: edmonton

No Cups

I could... and I will offer to the Oilers that I'll do it for 50% what they're paying Holland.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816428 is a reply to message #816376 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 15:18

g2k
Messages: 2840
Registered: January 2003
Location: The Hood

2 Cups

This summer Holland will have one year left on his contract. Assuming there is a postseason, I highly doubt this current team will go 3 rounds again. I highly doubt Holland can find the pieces to fix the team by the deadline. I’m not allergic mortgaging some future at this juncture, but fear he will hurt the future with poor choices that won’t plug the holes that’s have been here his entire tenure.

Katz would be wise to eat 5 million this summer. What’s troubling about that notion is how Nicholson would backfill that position. You can see where I’m going here. Katz would be best off eating 8 million this summer. Because Daryl isn’t going to hit the Connor/Cup window with these clowns.

We are effed. I would be livid as a long term ticket holder. My gawd.

#firebob #screwitjustselltheteam #ownerisacreep

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816429 is a reply to message #816428 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 15:33

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

My guess is that Nicholson will retire. He does turn 70 in May and with all the Hockey Canada association it would be a good time to do that. Holland moves up into Nicholson's role and Brad Holland is the GM.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816430 is a reply to message #816423 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 15:36

smyth260
Messages: 1081
Registered: November 2007

1 Cup

Kr55 wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 12:49

The Oilers have never had a GM during the McDavid years who understood where the team was at and what the next steps should be.

Chiarelli seemed impatient because of some terrible contracts, but I really think he was just fumbling around. He only traded one 1st round pick for help, and that help was for Griffin Reinhart in his first summer. The years following, he did not trade any of his high tier prospects or picks to try to make a real push while McDavid was on an cheap entry level deal. That was a huge missed opportunity. We already had a rich matured/maturing group with Hall, Eberle, Nuge, Yakupov, Klefbom, Draisaitl, Nurse. I would argue actually that Chiarelli should have been more urgent. We were pushing for a division title in McDavid's 2nd year, and the best Chiarelli did was get David Desharnais at the deadlines.

Instead he swapped holes for bigger holes by trading roster players like Eberle and Hall, downgrading his team in the process. He was somehow hoping that would improve the team.

The point in time where I think the Oilers had the most assets to build a great team was when they were going up to draft Puljularvi with the 4th overall pick. They should have never made that pick. They already had all of those players above, along with Sekera and Talbot. They did not need to add another high pick prospect to their collection. We should have made all our best prospects and picks available at that point to go all in for McDavid's 2nd and 3rd year of ELC. Chiarelli never went all in. He just seemed to do dumb things without much logic of where the Oilers were.

Years later, in comes Ken Holland. I feel like he has done more of the same. He has given out too much money or term for low impact players (Foegele, Kassian, Chiasson, everybody like Shore gets 2 years). He has not traded any of his 1st round picks or prospects to make the team better. He has went long and expensive on a fairly unproven goalie like Koskinen. His deadline acquisitions have been the likes of Athanasiou, Ennis, Green, Kulak, and Kulikov. Certainly better than Desharnais, but spending 2nd round picks galore for not much movement of the needle.

Nobody wants to sell the farm for McDavid/Draisaitl. None of our GMs realize the opportunity they have here or even what timeline they are on. Now we stare down the end of Draisaitl's deal largely in the same place as 5 years ago, counting on the emergence of Philip Broberg to save a team with Connor McDavid. We stockpile Holloway, Bourgault, and Reid Schaefer who are not helping at all while we contemplate about the end of these 2 players in Edmonton.

Ken Holland will trade his 1st round pick this year. It will be out of desperation. It will be because they accidentally made the Western Conference finals last season and expectations are high. The best we can hope for is that he lucks into some good trades. Otherwise, we are looking at the end of Draisaitl's contract in a couple years, probably following McDavid leaving, and back to square one. As always, the Oilers cup hopes are to win one despite management.

[Updated on: Tue, 10 January 2023 18:38]

Clean house or bust

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816433 is a reply to message #816429 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 16:13

Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 15:33

Good @#$%ing lord. If another Oilers exec fails upward again!? I'm already at my wit's end. I've been banging the drum asking for responsible, savvy, ACCOUNTABLE management for over a decade now. How there haven't been big changes on this team already, I'll never fully understand, but to actually have anyone happy if we have A) a failing GM promoted and B) his @#$%ing son made the new GM!?!?

Wow.

"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
#FireBobbyNicks

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816434 is a reply to message #816433 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 16:16

CrusaderPi
Messages: 7803
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 16:13

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 15:33

It was a guess Adam. Geez. Relax. Just because this seems like a prophecy hanging over our heads is no reason go off.

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

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816437 is a reply to message #816433 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 16:29

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 16:13

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 15:33

You know what Adam, I am really getting sick and tired of you putting words in my mouth. Where the hell did I say that I was loving that idea? WHERE. Point it out to me.

I said it was my guess, that's it. I never said I liked it or thought it was a good idea, my GUESS is based on a pattern of what the organization has done over the years and the advancement of Brad into his position to me telegraphs that move.

I get we have differing opinions but why are you constantly being such a jerk to me? What's your problem?

[Updated on: Tue, 10 January 2023 16:39]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816438 is a reply to message #816437 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 17:03

tardigrade81
Messages: 2262
Registered: November 2022
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan

2 Cups

All good points.

We need to sign a D man. No if and or but. This team won’t go anywhere with the current blue line playing this way

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #42) [message #816440 is a reply to message #816437 ]	Tue, 10 January 2023 18:24

Adam
Messages: 7176
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 16:29

Adam wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 16:13

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 10 January 2023 15:33

I've explained this to you before, but I'll try again - it's not about you. I'm not being a jerk to you. I'm reacting to thoughts and ideas and addressing them. If I respond to a specific poster's comment, it doesn't mean that I am directly taking aim at that person. I think I ranted in response to a g2k comment yesterday. I wasn't disputing anything he said, or denigrating his knowledge in any way.

My comment is because I could totally see what you suggest happening, because it's the kind of backwards crap that we've seen the Oilers do for years. It really hits all the notes - failing up, nepotism, complete ignorance of the facts, and locking in years more of failure by continuing to employee dinosaurs who don't understand how to manage a hockey team and who bring absolutely no creativity to the job.

Could Brad Holland be capable? Maybe, but if the Oilers replace Ken Holland by just promoting his son? It's lazy, brutal management and it would fail to acknowledge that this year, with both Holland's in the fold, the team is completely failing. Neither of them deserve a promotion.

The Oilers should do a fulsome hiring process for once, and hire someone who brings some different ideas to the table, because what we should understand by now is that what made a team successful in 1998 with double the salary of almost anyone else in the league, isn't going to work now. The next GM needs to understand how to manage the cap, they need to understand they need multiple viewpoints in the room, not just an echo chamber of old hockey guys. They need to understand that data can be valuable, and that you need people who are able to interpret it well - this likely means some level of investment. They need to be capable negotiators who don't think that it would be bad to win a trade - my god, I still can't believe Holland thinks that - and they need to not come looking to hire a bunch of their family members to the organization. It's ridiculous that so many of our GMs and executives have added family to the payroll. Why Katz has put up with that is beyond me. What are the odds that the best person for the jobs that weren't competitively hired for were Wayne Gretzky's brother, Pete Chiarelli's brother and Ken Holland's son? Is Nicholson's wife really the best photographer to hire for repeated projects? Kevin Lowe's kids are sprinkled throughout the organization. This kind of thing is just terrible for team culture and this isn't a family business.

My ire is all at the organization that just can't figure that stuff out. It's never about you, so please try not to take offence.

"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
#FireBobbyNicks

Report message to a moderator

Pages (2): [1 2 > »]

Previous Topic:	Review: Edmonton @ Anaheim (Game #43)
Next Topic:	GDT: Edmonton @ Anaheim (Game #43)

Oilers

NHL

Minors

Speculation

For Sale

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

Hosted by LogicalHosting.ca