OilFans.com :: Fan Forum: Oilers => Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4)

Guest

Login / Register

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 12:28 AM MT

F.A.Q.

Terms of Use F.A.Q.

F.A.Q.

Members

Search

Register

Login

Home

Oilers » Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4)

Pages (4): [ « < 1 2 3 4 > »]

Switch to flat view

Switch to tree view

Create a new topic

Submit Reply

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821931 is a reply to message #821929 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 12:26

Adam
Messages: 7174
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

JPro wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:18

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 10:49

Let's find out!

I love Jack. I get that he's definitely not everyone's cup of tea though. He's very over the top and hits the cheesy notes a lot, but I like it. He's certainly more radio than TV in that regard. Often times I'll see a highlight posted on Reddit or whatever and the comments are often like "Wow, I wish our announcer got that excited!"

Singh lacks any defining personality to me. Like I really couldn't describe his PBP style besides passionless and borderline sterile.

Jack and Louie also seem to be genuinely friends with chemistry, so I don't' mind the tangents and occasional goofing off.

But yet, at least we aren't being subjected to Cassie Campbell. I'll count my blessings.

I can agree with the Cassie comments.

I think the cheesiness is one of the things I dislike about Jack. All the stupid catch phrases screamed in to the mike "and he's OFF THE SCHNEID!!!" "DOWN THE STRETCH THEY COME!!!" etc etc. Yuck. Also he is such a massive apologist for the Oilers organization and goes so far out of his way to carry water that he can be ridiculous at times.

I would bet that if you did a broader poll of Oilers fans, that you'd find Jack would be preferred, although part of that is that, well, it's Alberta. Some probably like a little homerism too.

"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

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821978 is a reply to message #821931 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 17:45

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

2 Cups

Adam wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:26

JPro wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:18

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 10:49

Let's find out!

I love Jack. I get that he's definitely not everyone's cup of tea though. He's very over the top and hits the cheesy notes a lot, but I like it. He's certainly more radio than TV in that regard. Often times I'll see a highlight posted on Reddit or whatever and the comments are often like "Wow, I wish our announcer got that excited!"

Singh lacks any defining personality to me. Like I really couldn't describe his PBP style besides passionless and borderline sterile.

Jack and Louie also seem to be genuinely friends with chemistry, so I don't' mind the tangents and occasional goofing off.

But yet, at least we aren't being subjected to Cassie Campbell. I'll count my blessings.

I can agree with the Cassie comments.

I think the cheesiness is one of the things I dislike about Jack. All the stupid catch phrases screamed in to the mike "and he's OFF THE SCHNEID!!!" "DOWN THE STRETCH THEY COME!!!" etc etc. Yuck. Also he is such a massive apologist for the Oilers organization and goes so far out of his way to carry water that he can be ridiculous at times.

I would bet that if you did a broader poll of Oilers fans, that you'd find Jack would be preferred, although part of that is that, well, it's Alberta. Some probably like a little homerism too.

Jacks water carrying and working with “Safe Louie” is a bad mix for me. Louie can carry water pretty well too. Lou just won’t say anything negative about anything. And if it slips out he’s instantly rationalizing, giving the subject credit for other things. Bob isn’t really like that. Yeah, I don’t feel right crapping on a nice guy. I’m guessing Louie would be a great hang. He’s a good color guy, but after several seasons you just start to pick up on things.

[Updated on: Mon, 24 April 2023 17:47]

#firebob #screwitjustselltheteam #ownerisacreep

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821982 is a reply to message #821931 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 19:21

benv
Messages: 601
Registered: May 2006
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

Adam wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:26

JPro wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:18

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 10:49

Let's find out!

I love Jack. I get that he's definitely not everyone's cup of tea though. He's very over the top and hits the cheesy notes a lot, but I like it. He's certainly more radio than TV in that regard. Often times I'll see a highlight posted on Reddit or whatever and the comments are often like "Wow, I wish our announcer got that excited!"

Singh lacks any defining personality to me. Like I really couldn't describe his PBP style besides passionless and borderline sterile.

Jack and Louie also seem to be genuinely friends with chemistry, so I don't' mind the tangents and occasional goofing off.

But yet, at least we aren't being subjected to Cassie Campbell. I'll count my blessings.

I can agree with the Cassie comments.

I think the cheesiness is one of the things I dislike about Jack. All the stupid catch phrases screamed in to the mike "and he's OFF THE SCHNEID!!!" "DOWN THE STRETCH THEY COME!!!" etc etc. Yuck. Also he is such a massive apologist for the Oilers organization and goes so far out of his way to carry water that he can be ridiculous at times.

I would bet that if you did a broader poll of Oilers fans, that you'd find Jack would be preferred, although part of that is that, well, it's Alberta. Some probably like a little homerism too.

I voted Jack, but on the understanding that we're talking TV. I think Michaels is terrible on the radiowhen you can't see the action, but on TV, where I don't need a detailed description of the action, I find I like him a whole lot better.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821933 is a reply to message #821920 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 12:37

mightyreasoner
Messages: 520
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 10:49

Let's find out!

Look - I'll go as far as to say Jack is possibly the worst TV play-by-play guys the Oilers have had in my lifetime. He's a great announcer for people who watch the games through the radio, but when you can actually see the game being played, you can witness that whatever it is he is calling is something else entirely. Among the worst homer play-by-play callers in the league.

Nevermind that fact that it feels like I have someone in my living room yelling at me for three hours straight.

Singh may not be my very favourite play-by-play callers, but I'll take him every time over the two of them. He treats viewers like they have eyes and intelligence, and you don't feel like you are being gaslighted when watching the games.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821934 is a reply to message #821933 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 12:50

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:37

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 10:49

Let's find out!

Singh may not be my very favourite play-by-play callers, but I'll take him every time over the two of them. He treats viewers like they have eyes and intelligence, and you don't feel like you are being gaslighted when watching the games.

I will go the exact opposite. I am sitting there watching the game on TV. I can see how the play is happening, what the players are do and why so I don't need the play by play guy to talk to me like I have never watched a hockey game in my life and need to have everything explained to me so I understand what I am watching. I have 40+ yrs of experience watching hockey, I know what is happening. Bring me into the game, try to make me feel the emotion and the excitement that is in the building. Draw me into the play. I don't need to be explained too about what hockey is and how it's played.

The poll results seem to be quite 1 sided. I'd be curious to know what the results would be if there was a poll put out to all fans.

[Updated on: Mon, 24 April 2023 12:54]

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821943 is a reply to message #821934 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 13:17

mightyreasoner
Messages: 520
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:50

mightyreasoner wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:37

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 10:49

Let's find out!

Singh may not be my very favourite play-by-play callers, but I'll take him every time over the two of them. He treats viewers like they have eyes and intelligence, and you don't feel like you are being gaslighted when watching the games.

I will go the exact opposite. I am sitting there watching the game on TV. I can see how the play is happening, what the players are do and why so I don't need the play by play guy to talk to me like I have never watched a hockey game in my life and need to have everything explained to me so I understand what I am watching. I have 40+ yrs of experience watching hockey, I know what is happening. Bring me into the game, try to make me feel the emotion and the excitement that is in the building. Draw me into the play. I don't need to be explained too about what hockey is and how it's played.

The poll results seem to be quite 1 sided. I'd be curious to know what the results would be if there was a poll put out to all fans.

I don't know... If people can't get excited about the game for the game's sake and not because some middle-aged man is screaming all the time... that's a damning indictment on the game itself. In radio, that's all you have. It's different on TV, and I don't need someone else being overly excited for me to be excited. I know the game well enough to be excited about what I'm seeing. Most people watching do I would guess.

Broader poll, I'm sure Jack takes this in a landslide, and my guess is there would be a large overlap with those who enjoyed Don Cherry. Over the top animation and obnoxious homerism has a stronghold on many.

[Updated on: Mon, 24 April 2023 13:19]

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821953 is a reply to message #821943 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 14:16

Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

mightyreasoner wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 13:17

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:50

mightyreasoner wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:37

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 10:49

Let's find out!

Singh may not be my very favourite play-by-play callers, but I'll take him every time over the two of them. He treats viewers like they have eyes and intelligence, and you don't feel like you are being gaslighted when watching the games.

I will go the exact opposite. I am sitting there watching the game on TV. I can see how the play is happening, what the players are do and why so I don't need the play by play guy to talk to me like I have never watched a hockey game in my life and need to have everything explained to me so I understand what I am watching. I have 40+ yrs of experience watching hockey, I know what is happening. Bring me into the game, try to make me feel the emotion and the excitement that is in the building. Draw me into the play. I don't need to be explained too about what hockey is and how it's played.

The poll results seem to be quite 1 sided. I'd be curious to know what the results would be if there was a poll put out to all fans.

I don't know... If people can't get excited about the game for the game's sake and not because some middle-aged man is screaming all the time... that's a damning indictment on the game itself. In radio, that's all you have. It's different on TV, and I don't need someone else being overly excited for me to be excited. I know the game well enough to be excited about what I'm seeing. Most people watching do I would guess.

Broader poll, I'm sure Jack takes this in a landslide, and my guess is there would be a large overlap with those who enjoyed Don Cherry. Over the top animation and obnoxious homerism has a stronghold on many.

Think for me, I just don't want the commentator to be a distraction. I guess everyone has their own triggers, like Adam is drawing attention to Jack going off on tangents. I think I just tune him out when he's doing that so doesn't bother me as much. I personally get annoyed when the play by play guys tone isn't matching up with what it happening. That gives me the "wth" kind of feeling that distracts from the game. Singh is hitting that note with me over and over I find.

Someone brought up Quinn, I liked him too. He said the wrong names a lot which was obviously distracting, but also funny. But he was easy to just go with and tune out because his tone was always match the moment. Maybe that's the talent of the good commentators, their ability to just be in sync with what's going on and you can pretty much tune them out and enjoy the game and listen, when needed, if want to know the name of the player or what's happening in a scramble. Cutherbert is not a super boisterous commentator, but he does that very well too, just sounding in sync with the action.

"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

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821960 is a reply to message #821953 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 15:31

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 14:16

mightyreasoner wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 13:17

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:50

mightyreasoner wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:37

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 10:49

Let's find out!

Singh may not be my very favourite play-by-play callers, but I'll take him every time over the two of them. He treats viewers like they have eyes and intelligence, and you don't feel like you are being gaslighted when watching the games.

I will go the exact opposite. I am sitting there watching the game on TV. I can see how the play is happening, what the players are do and why so I don't need the play by play guy to talk to me like I have never watched a hockey game in my life and need to have everything explained to me so I understand what I am watching. I have 40+ yrs of experience watching hockey, I know what is happening. Bring me into the game, try to make me feel the emotion and the excitement that is in the building. Draw me into the play. I don't need to be explained too about what hockey is and how it's played.

The poll results seem to be quite 1 sided. I'd be curious to know what the results would be if there was a poll put out to all fans.

I don't know... If people can't get excited about the game for the game's sake and not because some middle-aged man is screaming all the time... that's a damning indictment on the game itself. In radio, that's all you have. It's different on TV, and I don't need someone else being overly excited for me to be excited. I know the game well enough to be excited about what I'm seeing. Most people watching do I would guess.

Broader poll, I'm sure Jack takes this in a landslide, and my guess is there would be a large overlap with those who enjoyed Don Cherry. Over the top animation and obnoxious homerism has a stronghold on many.

Think for me, I just don't want the commentator to be a distraction. I guess everyone has their own triggers, like Adam is drawing attention to Jack going off on tangents. I think I just tune him out when he's doing that so doesn't bother me as much. I personally get annoyed when the play by play guys tone isn't matching up with what it happening. That gives me the "wth" kind of feeling that distracts from the game. Singh is hitting that note with me over and over I find.

Someone brought up Quinn, I liked him too. He said the wrong names a lot which was obviously distracting, but also funny. But he was easy to just go with and tune out because his tone was always match the moment. Maybe that's the talent of the good commentators, their ability to just be in sync with what's going on and you can pretty much tune them out and enjoy the game and listen, when needed, if want to know the name of the player or what's happening in a scramble. Cutherbert is not a super boisterous commentator, but he does that very well too, just sounding in sync with the action.

I agree with you. When the play by play doesn't tone or delivery doesn't match the pace of the game or what's happening. If it's just the same like Singh mostly is, I notice it. My instance response is "he's boring" where as Jack I don't notice him. I am into the game, I am excited so when he is is all excited "yelling" I don't notice it.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821971 is a reply to message #821953 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 16:15

mightyreasoner
Messages: 520
Registered: October 2005
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 14:16

mightyreasoner wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 13:17

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:50

mightyreasoner wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:37

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 10:49

Let's find out!

Singh may not be my very favourite play-by-play callers, but I'll take him every time over the two of them. He treats viewers like they have eyes and intelligence, and you don't feel like you are being gaslighted when watching the games.

I will go the exact opposite. I am sitting there watching the game on TV. I can see how the play is happening, what the players are do and why so I don't need the play by play guy to talk to me like I have never watched a hockey game in my life and need to have everything explained to me so I understand what I am watching. I have 40+ yrs of experience watching hockey, I know what is happening. Bring me into the game, try to make me feel the emotion and the excitement that is in the building. Draw me into the play. I don't need to be explained too about what hockey is and how it's played.

The poll results seem to be quite 1 sided. I'd be curious to know what the results would be if there was a poll put out to all fans.

I don't know... If people can't get excited about the game for the game's sake and not because some middle-aged man is screaming all the time... that's a damning indictment on the game itself. In radio, that's all you have. It's different on TV, and I don't need someone else being overly excited for me to be excited. I know the game well enough to be excited about what I'm seeing. Most people watching do I would guess.

Broader poll, I'm sure Jack takes this in a landslide, and my guess is there would be a large overlap with those who enjoyed Don Cherry. Over the top animation and obnoxious homerism has a stronghold on many.

Think for me, I just don't want the commentator to be a distraction. I guess everyone has their own triggers, like Adam is drawing attention to Jack going off on tangents. I think I just tune him out when he's doing that so doesn't bother me as much. I personally get annoyed when the play by play guys tone isn't matching up with what it happening. That gives me the "wth" kind of feeling that distracts from the game. Singh is hitting that note with me over and over I find.

Someone brought up Quinn, I liked him too. He said the wrong names a lot which was obviously distracting, but also funny. But he was easy to just go with and tune out because his tone was always match the moment. Maybe that's the talent of the good commentators, their ability to just be in sync with what's going on and you can pretty much tune them out and enjoy the game and listen, when needed, if want to know the name of the player or what's happening in a scramble. Cutherbert is not a super boisterous commentator, but he does that very well too, just sounding in sync with the action.

Maybe that is what is comes down to. I find Michaels remarkably distracting, with his tangents and inside jokes and yelling and homerism. He actively makes Louie worse as a colour commentator, IMO too.

I didn't mind Quinn though, and maybe he is that middle ground between the two. I was disappointed to see him let go, to be honest. I don't think the play-by-play crew is better as a result.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821954 is a reply to message #821934 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 14:54

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

2 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:50

mightyreasoner wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:37

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 10:49

Let's find out!

Singh may not be my very favourite play-by-play callers, but I'll take him every time over the two of them. He treats viewers like they have eyes and intelligence, and you don't feel like you are being gaslighted when watching the games.

I will go the exact opposite. I am sitting there watching the game on TV. I can see how the play is happening, what the players are do and why so I don't need the play by play guy to talk to me like I have never watched a hockey game in my life and need to have everything explained to me so I understand what I am watching. I have 40+ yrs of experience watching hockey, I know what is happening. Bring me into the game, try to make me feel the emotion and the excitement that is in the building. Draw me into the play. I don't need to be explained too about what hockey is and how it's played.

The poll results seem to be quite 1 sided. I'd be curious to know what the results would be if there was a poll put out to all fans.

It's a function of Michaels cutting his teeth in radio.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821970 is a reply to message #821954 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 16:06

Skookum Jim
Messages: 4418
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

4 Cups

K.McC#24 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 13:54

It's a function of Michaels cutting his teeth in radio.

I think that's why Michaels is so loud and over talks the play.. if you're listening to a game on radio you need something to engage you where on TV you can see the play happening for yourself. He would do better to dial it down a bit while the play is on, just do PxP.. maybe cut it back 50% don't get over involved in the color commentating, I don't mind some banter between a PxP and a color commentator.

I would understand how Michaels as is wouldn't be a good choice for a national telecast,

On the other hand there must be better PxP guys out there than Singh.. .. technically the PxP is not that good, usually behind and slow, voice tends toward monotonic, when he does try to add some excitement its just that.. like he's trying, like listening to a bad actor try to manufacture emotion.. and hasn't really got anything interesting to add in commentating.. don't need Jack level.. but should be something meaningful to add about players or banter during stoppages.. I like Singh, good guy, and pulled for him because he's local, just wish he was better at PxP! :)

I think I also soured on him a bit over the years because the Oilers always seemed to lose when he did a game, especially on HNIC.. started to view him as a jinx.. (actually, might be main reason I soured on him!)😊
But Oilers won in OT.. maybe that ends any jinx? 👍🏻

It would be interesting to hear how the process works in the networks deciding to audition new PxP guys into the NHL games.. must be people that have done a few years of PxP on CHL and IIHF games?

[Updated on: Mon, 24 April 2023 16:24]

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: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821928 is a reply to message #821902 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 11:58

Jay
Messages: 561
Registered: January 2007
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 08:50

Seeing the stat that Drai has been on the ice for 14/14 of our goals in the series.

Geez...

This is a wild stat 4 games into the series. 'Playoff Leon' is basically unstoppable if he's healthy.

"Initiative comes to thems that wait"

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821932 is a reply to message #821928 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 12:26

Leia
Messages: 410
Registered: May 2003
Location: England

No Cups

Well that was different, what ever was said in the locker room between 1 & 2 worked

As much as they are not adding to the scoreboard, I'm loving the bottom half of the forwards in this series. They are doing the dirty work, to give our top lines a chance. Great shifts, keeping pressure on and being a pain in the butt to the opposition.

I actually think this could be a bigger result than just bringing it to 2-2. From 3-0 down, and then 4-3 after coming back to win could have an effect on the Kings. They'll know they are only in the series because of the netminding and if we can get to that in the next game, we'll be in an excellent position.

It's no certainty that we get past the Kings, but if we do we'll be a better spot than last year. As good as the BOA was, as good as it was to kick the Flames out of the play-off's it took so much out of us that we folded against the Avs.

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

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821935 is a reply to message #821932 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 12:59

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

1 Cup

What's the deal with the schedule? Only 3 games tomorrow, and then just 2 on Wednesday? And we don't play game 6 until Saturday? Don't recall ever see 4 days between games in the 1st round.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821938 is a reply to message #821935 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 13:04

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

6 Cups

Mike wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:59

What's the deal with the schedule? Only 3 games tomorrow, and then just 2 on Wednesday? And we don't play game 6 until Saturday? Don't recall ever see 4 days between games in the 1st round.

Arena availability for the Oilers - Kings break. I have no idea why the NHL would schedule fewer games right at the point when series are going to start ending.

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

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821939 is a reply to message #821935 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 13:06

Adam
Messages: 7174
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Mike wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:59

What's the deal with the schedule? Only 3 games tomorrow, and then just 2 on Wednesday? And we don't play game 6 until Saturday? Don't recall ever see 4 days between games in the 1st round.

Bizarre. Looking at Crypto.com Arena, I don't see any shows in there or other reasons why we couldn't be playing on Thursday...I thought maybe Taylor Swift or someone had the rink if we're being pushed that far out, but it doesn't appear to be so.

https://www.cryptoarena.com/events

"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

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821942 is a reply to message #821939 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 13:14

Adam
Messages: 7174
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Adam wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 13:06

Mike wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:59

What's the deal with the schedule? Only 3 games tomorrow, and then just 2 on Wednesday? And we don't play game 6 until Saturday? Don't recall ever see 4 days between games in the 1st round.

Bizarre. Looking at Crypto.com Arena, I don't see any shows in there or other reasons why we couldn't be playing on Thursday...I thought maybe Taylor Swift or someone had the rink if we're being pushed that far out, but it doesn't appear to be so.

https://www.cryptoarena.com/events

This is more accurate:

https://www.ticketmaster.com/cryptocom-arena-tickets-los-ang eles/venue/360457

Clippers play Thursday (assuming not eliminated tomorrow), Lakers play Friday (assuming not advanced on Wednesday), so we're stuck off on Saturday. I wonder if either of those eliminations happened if it would change the schedule at all.

[Updated on: Mon, 24 April 2023 13:20]

"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

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821944 is a reply to message #821939 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 13:36

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

6 Cups

Adam wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 13:06

Mike wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:59

What's the deal with the schedule? Only 3 games tomorrow, and then just 2 on Wednesday? And we don't play game 6 until Saturday? Don't recall ever see 4 days between games in the 1st round.

Bizarre. Looking at Crypto.com Arena, I don't see any shows in there or other reasons why we couldn't be playing on Thursday...I thought maybe Taylor Swift or someone had the rink if we're being pushed that far out, but it doesn't appear to be so.

https://www.cryptoarena.com/events

Taylor Swift only does stadium shows now. She's transcendent and elevated far beyond the need for mere arenas.

They either had to schedule games 5&6 back to back because the Clippers have a home game Thursday and the Lakers have it Friday. Why basketball (and especially the departing Clippers) got priority over the Kings hasn't been explained.

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

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821945 is a reply to message #821944 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 13:40

Adam
Messages: 7174
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 13:36

Adam wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 13:06

Mike wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 12:59

What's the deal with the schedule? Only 3 games tomorrow, and then just 2 on Wednesday? And we don't play game 6 until Saturday? Don't recall ever see 4 days between games in the 1st round.

Bizarre. Looking at Crypto.com Arena, I don't see any shows in there or other reasons why we couldn't be playing on Thursday...I thought maybe Taylor Swift or someone had the rink if we're being pushed that far out, but it doesn't appear to be so.

https://www.cryptoarena.com/events

Taylor Swift only does stadium shows now. She's transcendent and elevated far beyond the need for mere arenas.

They either had to schedule games 5&6 back to back because the Clippers have a home game Thursday and the Lakers have it Friday. Why basketball (and especially the departing Clippers) got priority over the Kings hasn't been explained.

Especially interesting since the two basketball games are only theoretical dates at this point, while the hockey game is set in stone.

Three teams sharing the same arena with playoffs at the same time just seems like it's a scenario designed to cause issues. We really need to end the Kings to help Los Angeles out.

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

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821949 is a reply to message #821945 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 14:00

Dragon_Matt
Messages: 766
Registered: January 2009
Location: edmonton

No Cups

It's the Canadian thing to do.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821937 is a reply to message #821932 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 13:03

Adam
Messages: 7174
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

One thing I think is interesting is how little criticism we've seen Bjugstad get compared to McLeod. Here's the stats lines:

Bjugstad - 4 GP - 0-0-0, even, 0 PIMs, 3 shots, 9 hits, 1 block, 61.3% on faceoffs, 14:25/gm
McLeod - 4 GP - 0-0-0, -1, 0 PIMs, 2 shots, 5 hits, 3 blocks, 47.4% on faceoffs, 14:15/gm

Other than in the faceoff dot, Bjugstad hasn't done a lot more to distinguish himself in any games and I think McLeod's been a lot more noticeable as a puck transporter. I do think the centers are being asked to be certain they're getting back, so I'll give both of these guys a bit of a pass for not crushing more people - even Derek Ryan only has 4 hits, so there is some requirement that if you're not right on top of people you're not just going for the Josh Archibald stat stacking by running in to people long after the puck is gone, or completely ignoring the puck to try to inflict some damage.

I would like to see a little more nose for the net from both those guys though. 5 shots between those guys in almost two hours of game time is not very much.

"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

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821948 is a reply to message #821937 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 14:00

inverno76
Messages: 2340
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...

2 Cups

Adam wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 13:03

One thing I think is interesting is how little criticism we've seen Bjugstad get compared to McLeod. Here's the stats lines:

Bjugstad - 4 GP - 0-0-0, even, 0 PIMs, 3 shots, 9 hits, 1 block, 61.3% on faceoffs, 14:25/gm
McLeod - 4 GP - 0-0-0, -1, 0 PIMs, 2 shots, 5 hits, 3 blocks, 47.4% on faceoffs, 14:15/gm

Other than in the faceoff dot, Bjugstad hasn't done a lot more to distinguish himself in any games and I think McLeod's been a lot more noticeable as a puck transporter. I do think the centers are being asked to be certain they're getting back, so I'll give both of these guys a bit of a pass for not crushing more people - even Derek Ryan only has 4 hits, so there is some requirement that if you're not right on top of people you're not just going for the Josh Archibald stat stacking by running in to people long after the puck is gone, or completely ignoring the puck to try to inflict some damage.

I would like to see a little more nose for the net from both those guys though. 5 shots between those guys in almost two hours of game time is not very much.

Right or wrong, face-offs are a tangible measuring unit that every fan recognizes.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821956 is a reply to message #821948 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 15:07

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

inverno76 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 14:00

Adam wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 13:03

One thing I think is interesting is how little criticism we've seen Bjugstad get compared to McLeod. Here's the stats lines:

Bjugstad - 4 GP - 0-0-0, even, 0 PIMs, 3 shots, 9 hits, 1 block, 61.3% on faceoffs, 14:25/gm
McLeod - 4 GP - 0-0-0, -1, 0 PIMs, 2 shots, 5 hits, 3 blocks, 47.4% on faceoffs, 14:15/gm

Other than in the faceoff dot, Bjugstad hasn't done a lot more to distinguish himself in any games and I think McLeod's been a lot more noticeable as a puck transporter. I do think the centers are being asked to be certain they're getting back, so I'll give both of these guys a bit of a pass for not crushing more people - even Derek Ryan only has 4 hits, so there is some requirement that if you're not right on top of people you're not just going for the Josh Archibald stat stacking by running in to people long after the puck is gone, or completely ignoring the puck to try to inflict some damage.

I would like to see a little more nose for the net from both those guys though. 5 shots between those guys in almost two hours of game time is not very much.

Right or wrong, face-offs are a tangible measuring unit that every fan recognizes.

I never understood why some fans and some in the stats community devalue faceoffs. When you win a faceoff, you get possession immediately. When you are in the defensive zone, its very important to have the puck as soon as possible especially on the PK. You get the puck, you can get it out. In the offensive zone, if you win the draw, you generally can create a scoring chance. So being 14% better on draws is a pretty big deal in my opinion.

Where I think I personally see the difference between Bjugstad and McLeod is by eye, it appears Bjugstad is more in the play where as McLeod always seems to be on the perimeter. Now maybe because of his sure size, it makes Bjugstad look more like he's in there.

For McLeod, you notice his speed. So if he wasn't quite as fast but was doing exactly the same in all the other areas, would a person notice him? My answer is, I doubt it but that is my opinion. I will see McLeod a couple of times again grab the puck and zip around the ice because he's faster than most others but that's all I notice him doing.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821961 is a reply to message #821956 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 15:31

Kr55
Messages: 10769
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:07

inverno76 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 14:00

Adam wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 13:03

One thing I think is interesting is how little criticism we've seen Bjugstad get compared to McLeod. Here's the stats lines:

Bjugstad - 4 GP - 0-0-0, even, 0 PIMs, 3 shots, 9 hits, 1 block, 61.3% on faceoffs, 14:25/gm
McLeod - 4 GP - 0-0-0, -1, 0 PIMs, 2 shots, 5 hits, 3 blocks, 47.4% on faceoffs, 14:15/gm

Other than in the faceoff dot, Bjugstad hasn't done a lot more to distinguish himself in any games and I think McLeod's been a lot more noticeable as a puck transporter. I do think the centers are being asked to be certain they're getting back, so I'll give both of these guys a bit of a pass for not crushing more people - even Derek Ryan only has 4 hits, so there is some requirement that if you're not right on top of people you're not just going for the Josh Archibald stat stacking by running in to people long after the puck is gone, or completely ignoring the puck to try to inflict some damage.

I would like to see a little more nose for the net from both those guys though. 5 shots between those guys in almost two hours of game time is not very much.

Right or wrong, face-offs are a tangible measuring unit that every fan recognizes.

I never understood why some fans and some in the stats community devalue faceoffs. When you win a faceoff, you get possession immediately. When you are in the defensive zone, its very important to have the puck as soon as possible especially on the PK. You get the puck, you can get it out. In the offensive zone, if you win the draw, you generally can create a scoring chance. So being 14% better on draws is a pretty big deal in my opinion.

Where I think I personally see the difference between Bjugstad and McLeod is by eye, it appears Bjugstad is more in the play where as McLeod always seems to be on the perimeter. Now maybe because of his sure size, it makes Bjugstad look more like he's in there.

For McLeod, you notice his speed. So if he wasn't quite as fast but was doing exactly the same in all the other areas, would a person notice him? My answer is, I doubt it but that is my opinion. I will see McLeod a couple of times again grab the puck and zip around the ice because he's faster than most others but that's all I notice him doing.

I've seen better faceoff stats that actually can relate back to some measure of success. Overall faceoff stats are just a mess of everything and really eliminate a lot of what the individual center does too because wingers play a big part in a lot of them.

Stats that show things like clean wins, and take into account context like which zone they're happening in and the situation, there are some centers that are able to separate themselves from the pack as guys that execute well in important moments.

Coaches spend a lot of time trying to pick the right guy for a faceoff, lots of plays revolve around the center pulling off a clean win. In a lot of ways it balances out because every coach and the centers put in the effort, and most GM's make sure they have some decent centers. But as soon as any GM/coach decided the effort they have been putting in isn't worth it and decide to just let the chips fall where they may, just letting the other team be the only one that cares, I think they would get eaten up a lot more.

"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

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821962 is a reply to message #821961 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 15:38

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:31

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:07

inverno76 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 14:00

Adam wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 13:03

One thing I think is interesting is how little criticism we've seen Bjugstad get compared to McLeod. Here's the stats lines:

Bjugstad - 4 GP - 0-0-0, even, 0 PIMs, 3 shots, 9 hits, 1 block, 61.3% on faceoffs, 14:25/gm
McLeod - 4 GP - 0-0-0, -1, 0 PIMs, 2 shots, 5 hits, 3 blocks, 47.4% on faceoffs, 14:15/gm

Other than in the faceoff dot, Bjugstad hasn't done a lot more to distinguish himself in any games and I think McLeod's been a lot more noticeable as a puck transporter. I do think the centers are being asked to be certain they're getting back, so I'll give both of these guys a bit of a pass for not crushing more people - even Derek Ryan only has 4 hits, so there is some requirement that if you're not right on top of people you're not just going for the Josh Archibald stat stacking by running in to people long after the puck is gone, or completely ignoring the puck to try to inflict some damage.

I would like to see a little more nose for the net from both those guys though. 5 shots between those guys in almost two hours of game time is not very much.

Right or wrong, face-offs are a tangible measuring unit that every fan recognizes.

I never understood why some fans and some in the stats community devalue faceoffs. When you win a faceoff, you get possession immediately. When you are in the defensive zone, its very important to have the puck as soon as possible especially on the PK. You get the puck, you can get it out. In the offensive zone, if you win the draw, you generally can create a scoring chance. So being 14% better on draws is a pretty big deal in my opinion.

Where I think I personally see the difference between Bjugstad and McLeod is by eye, it appears Bjugstad is more in the play where as McLeod always seems to be on the perimeter. Now maybe because of his sure size, it makes Bjugstad look more like he's in there.

For McLeod, you notice his speed. So if he wasn't quite as fast but was doing exactly the same in all the other areas, would a person notice him? My answer is, I doubt it but that is my opinion. I will see McLeod a couple of times again grab the puck and zip around the ice because he's faster than most others but that's all I notice him doing.

I've seen better faceoff stats that actually can relate back to some measure of success. Overall faceoff stats are just a mess of everything and really eliminate a lot of what the individual center does too because wingers play a big part in a lot of them.

Stats that show things like clean wins, and take into account context like which zone they're happening in and the situation, there are some centers that are able to separate themselves from the pack as guys that execute well in important moments.

Coaches spend a lot of time trying to pick the right guy for a faceoff, lots of plays revolve around the center pulling off a clean win. In a lot of ways it balances out because every coach and the centers put in the effort, and most GM's make sure they have some decent centers. But as soon as any GM/coach decided the effort they have been putting in isn't worth it and decide to just let the chips fall where they may, just letting the other team be the only one that cares, I think they would get eaten up a lot more.

But the center plays a big part in the faceoffs. If he loses it cleanly, that's a problem. In order to get a winger win, he had to not lose the draw clean and tie the center up to give his wingers a chance to get it.

At the end of the day, if you win the faceoff, you get possession. The more possession you have the better chance you have to defend, get the puck out or create a scoring chance. A center being 14% better at draws especially when every play matters is pretty significant in my opinion.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821975 is a reply to message #821956 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 17:17

inverno76
Messages: 2340
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...

2 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:07

inverno76 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 14:00

Adam wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 13:03

One thing I think is interesting is how little criticism we've seen Bjugstad get compared to McLeod. Here's the stats lines:

Bjugstad - 4 GP - 0-0-0, even, 0 PIMs, 3 shots, 9 hits, 1 block, 61.3% on faceoffs, 14:25/gm
McLeod - 4 GP - 0-0-0, -1, 0 PIMs, 2 shots, 5 hits, 3 blocks, 47.4% on faceoffs, 14:15/gm

Other than in the faceoff dot, Bjugstad hasn't done a lot more to distinguish himself in any games and I think McLeod's been a lot more noticeable as a puck transporter. I do think the centers are being asked to be certain they're getting back, so I'll give both of these guys a bit of a pass for not crushing more people - even Derek Ryan only has 4 hits, so there is some requirement that if you're not right on top of people you're not just going for the Josh Archibald stat stacking by running in to people long after the puck is gone, or completely ignoring the puck to try to inflict some damage.

I would like to see a little more nose for the net from both those guys though. 5 shots between those guys in almost two hours of game time is not very much.

Right or wrong, face-offs are a tangible measuring unit that every fan recognizes.

I never understood why some fans and some in the stats community devalue faceoffs. When you win a faceoff, you get possession immediately. When you are in the defensive zone, its very important to have the puck as soon as possible especially on the PK. You get the puck, you can get it out. In the offensive zone, if you win the draw, you generally can create a scoring chance. So being 14% better on draws is a pretty big deal in my opinion.

Where I think I personally see the difference between Bjugstad and McLeod is by eye, it appears Bjugstad is more in the play where as McLeod always seems to be on the perimeter. Now maybe because of his sure size, it makes Bjugstad look more like he's in there.

For McLeod, you notice his speed. So if he wasn't quite as fast but was doing exactly the same in all the other areas, would a person notice him? My answer is, I doubt it but that is my opinion. I will see McLeod a couple of times again grab the puck and zip around the ice because he's faster than most others but that's all I notice him doing.

As the once great Edmonton Oilers coach Craig MacTavish said, "We are visually better". Unfortunately he was more referring to moral victories in the midst of our decade and a half of darkness, but I get what you are saying.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821911 is a reply to message #821802 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 09:39

inverno76
Messages: 2340
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...

2 Cups

I turned off my phone before the game. I pretty much avoided all social media yesterday aside from the pre-game interviews. I was curious to see what this forum was doing, but if I went online it would ultimately lead me into Twitter which would have killed my soul.

What a frickin' game. Campbell was scary, but he got it done. I think the puck found him more than he found the puck at times and the one goal he gave up was not great. We need to go back to Skinner, and I hope he finds a way to stop leaking rebounds. The Kings game plan definitely is revolving around shooting low and crashing the net looking for a loose puck, but Skinner has earned that crease and has not done enough to lose it imo.

I agree with the 97/29 experiment being necessary, but it cannot be the way we move forward. Save that for special times in a game, but we are way more balanced when they are split apart.

Deharnais can be a PK specialist in the 11/7 model, but Broberg needs to play the EV strength minutes going forward. Vinny is just too lumbering in this series.

Love seeing Zack and and Evander sniping, and this team has a never give up attitude that makes you feel like they can do something special this year.

https://www.beerleagueheroes.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/raffi-torres.jpg

btw. I am going to my first playoff game tomorrow and I am the giddiest 47 year old kid in the world. LFG!

[Updated on: Mon, 24 April 2023 09:44]

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821917 is a reply to message #821802 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 10:10

smyth260
Messages: 1080
Registered: November 2007

1 Cup

Who do you start in game 5?[ 25 vote(s) ]

1. Campbell 4 / 16%
2. Skinner 21 / 84%

Who do you start in game 5?

Clean house or bust

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821926 is a reply to message #821917 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 11:32

AndersonRules
Messages: 94
Registered: April 2008
Location: Shawnee, Oklahoma (OKC ar...

No Cups

Guess I'm the lone dissenter ... I'd go with the hot hand. Skinner has been average all series; Campbell was excellent yesterday. I'd give him another shot. But it is a close call in my mind - I would have no problem with them starting Skinner instead. Yes, his season-long work "earned the crease" ... but "what have you done lately" points toward Campbell.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821927 is a reply to message #821926 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 11:56

Jay
Messages: 561
Registered: January 2007
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

AndersonRules wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 11:32

Guess I'm the lone dissenter ... I'd go with the hot hand. Skinner has been average all series; Campbell was excellent yesterday. I'd give him another shot. But it is a close call in my mind - I would have no problem with them starting Skinner instead. Yes, his season-long work "earned the crease" ... but "what have you done lately" points toward Campbell.

I'm kind of the same - I'd go Campbell - but I don't think playing Skinner is a terrible decision (and I think that's what they will do).

I think barring a total goaltending collapse and that they play 29 and 97 on their own lines they win on tues.

"Initiative comes to thems that wait"

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821940 is a reply to message #821926 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 13:06

Skookum Jim
Messages: 4418
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

4 Cups

AndersonRules wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 10:32

Guess I'm the lone dissenter ... I'd go with the hot hand. Skinner has been average all series; Campbell was excellent yesterday. I'd give him another shot. But it is a close call in my mind - I would have no problem with them starting Skinner instead. Yes, his season-long work "earned the crease" ... but "what have you done lately" points toward Campbell.

You have a point.. but I remember too many Campbell melt downs earlier in the season.. Skinner hasn't been sharp.. but he hasn't melted down.. yet.. tough choice..

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: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821941 is a reply to message #821940 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 13:10

Adam
Messages: 7174
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Skookum Jim wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 13:06

AndersonRules wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 10:32

Guess I'm the lone dissenter ... I'd go with the hot hand. Skinner has been average all series; Campbell was excellent yesterday. I'd give him another shot. But it is a close call in my mind - I would have no problem with them starting Skinner instead. Yes, his season-long work "earned the crease" ... but "what have you done lately" points toward Campbell.

You have a point.. but I remember too many Campbell melt downs earlier in the season.. Skinner hasn't been sharp.. but he hasn't melted down.. yet.. tough choice..

This is just it for me.

Not only did I not have any confidence watching Campbell spill out MANY rebounds last night, including 3 in a row on that first series, but all season he's had his struggles. While I think that there's definitely been some nerves from Skinner, I think if you can get him settled, then he can possibly backstop us deep in the playoffs. If you give the net to Campbell - well - he might be able to beat the Kings, but can he get us past the Knights or the Avs or Stars or Wild? I think that would be a stretch.

"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

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821950 is a reply to message #821941 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 14:04

inverno76
Messages: 2340
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...

2 Cups

The media is coming out saying Campbell played lights out last night. Maybe I am just jaded, but I saw a pretty shaky goalie who got lucky. Skinner plays a way quieter game normally. I like a goalie who will freeze the puck lots and always make the routine save, even though he's not always on the hi-light reel making a spectacular save.

[Updated on: Mon, 24 April 2023 14:42]

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821952 is a reply to message #821950 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 14:13

Dragon_Matt
Messages: 766
Registered: January 2009
Location: edmonton

No Cups

Anyone know why Kostin only plays 3:37?
I missed the first period, was he that bad?

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821955 is a reply to message #821950 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 15:04

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

6 Cups

inverno76 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 14:04

The media is coming out saying Campbell played lights out last night. Maybe I am just jaded, but I saw a pretty shaky goalie who got lucky. Skinner plays a way quieter game normally. I like a goalie who will freeze the puck lots and always make the routine save, even though he's not always on the hi-light reel making a spectacular save.

I agree entirely. I thought he was goaltending on a unicycle while juggling chainsaws. Everything seemed like a scramble around the net.

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

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821957 is a reply to message #821955 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 15:08

AndersonRules
Messages: 94
Registered: April 2008
Location: Shawnee, Oklahoma (OKC ar...

No Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:04

inverno76 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 14:04

The media is coming out saying Campbell played lights out last night. Maybe I am just jaded, but I saw a pretty shaky goalie who got lucky. Skinner plays a way quieter game normally. I like a goalie who will freeze the puck lots and always make the routine save, even though he's not always on the hi-light reel making a spectacular save.

I agree entirely. I thought he was goaltending on a unicycle while juggling chainsaws. Everything seemed like a scramble around the net.

Love the phrasing! Favorite post of the day!

Nonetheless ... in his last three games, Campbell has 2GA on what, 80 shots or so?
But y'all almost won me over to going back to Skinner with the long-run argument ... though even still, has Skinner given us any indication that he can weather the playoff pressure cooker without wilting? The first 4 games weren't great, and the pressure only increases as the team goes deeper.
My instinct is still to stick with the hotter hand - I'd go back to Campbell tomorrow.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821958 is a reply to message #821957 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 15:15

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

6 Cups

AndersonRules wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:08

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:04

inverno76 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 14:04

The media is coming out saying Campbell played lights out last night. Maybe I am just jaded, but I saw a pretty shaky goalie who got lucky. Skinner plays a way quieter game normally. I like a goalie who will freeze the puck lots and always make the routine save, even though he's not always on the hi-light reel making a spectacular save.

I agree entirely. I thought he was goaltending on a unicycle while juggling chainsaws. Everything seemed like a scramble around the net.

Love the phrasing! Favorite post of the day!

Nonetheless ... in his last three games, Campbell has 2GA on what, 80 shots or so?
But y'all almost won me over to going back to Skinner with the long-run argument ... though even still, has Skinner given us any indication that he can weather the playoff pressure cooker without wilting? The first 4 games weren't great, and the pressure only increases as the team goes deeper.
My instinct is still to stick with the hotter hand - I'd go back to Campbell tomorrow.

I believe in process over results in most circumstances. Especially going into big games I think the goaltender should look like he's in position and confident moving around. Unless it's Hasek. The potential for Campbell to be a total cluster is too great despite a solid run late in the season.

The other reason I go with Skinner tomorrow is it leaves Campbell as a viable backup should Skinner struggle. I think benching Skinner after 3.1 games burns him mentally. If Campbell struggles in game 5, which is definitely possible, that leaves the Oilers with two broken goalies. I leave Campbell chambered for game 6 if they're down 3-2.

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

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821965 is a reply to message #821958 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 15:50

Adam
Messages: 7174
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:15

AndersonRules wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:08

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:04

inverno76 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 14:04

The media is coming out saying Campbell played lights out last night. Maybe I am just jaded, but I saw a pretty shaky goalie who got lucky. Skinner plays a way quieter game normally. I like a goalie who will freeze the puck lots and always make the routine save, even though he's not always on the hi-light reel making a spectacular save.

I agree entirely. I thought he was goaltending on a unicycle while juggling chainsaws. Everything seemed like a scramble around the net.

Love the phrasing! Favorite post of the day!

Nonetheless ... in his last three games, Campbell has 2GA on what, 80 shots or so?
But y'all almost won me over to going back to Skinner with the long-run argument ... though even still, has Skinner given us any indication that he can weather the playoff pressure cooker without wilting? The first 4 games weren't great, and the pressure only increases as the team goes deeper.
My instinct is still to stick with the hotter hand - I'd go back to Campbell tomorrow.

I believe in process over results in most circumstances. Especially going into big games I think the goaltender should look like he's in position and confident moving around. Unless it's Hasek. The potential for Campbell to be a total cluster is too great despite a solid run late in the season.

The other reason I go with Skinner tomorrow is it leaves Campbell as a viable backup should Skinner struggle. I think benching Skinner after 3.1 games burns him mentally. If Campbell struggles in game 5, which is definitely possible, that leaves the Oilers with two broken goalies. I leave Campbell chambered for game 6 if they're down 3-2.

This is another good point. The win should help Campbell's confidence - which we've seen this year can be a fleeting thing - but it's not going to cripple him not to start the next one. He's been around long enough to know that typically in the playoffs you have one starter and ride that guy come hell or high water (unless you're Minnesota!?! Still puzzling why they gave Fleury the net for Game 2) so it's not going to surprise him to be back on the end of the bench.

It might break Skinner though to think he has lost the net, and if Campbell's circus act doesn't stop pucks next game then as you say, you might be playing with no confident goalies...which is basically dead in the water territory.

"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

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821968 is a reply to message #821958 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 16:00

RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:15

AndersonRules wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:08

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:04

inverno76 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 14:04

The media is coming out saying Campbell played lights out last night. Maybe I am just jaded, but I saw a pretty shaky goalie who got lucky. Skinner plays a way quieter game normally. I like a goalie who will freeze the puck lots and always make the routine save, even though he's not always on the hi-light reel making a spectacular save.

I agree entirely. I thought he was goaltending on a unicycle while juggling chainsaws. Everything seemed like a scramble around the net.

Love the phrasing! Favorite post of the day!

Nonetheless ... in his last three games, Campbell has 2GA on what, 80 shots or so?
But y'all almost won me over to going back to Skinner with the long-run argument ... though even still, has Skinner given us any indication that he can weather the playoff pressure cooker without wilting? The first 4 games weren't great, and the pressure only increases as the team goes deeper.
My instinct is still to stick with the hotter hand - I'd go back to Campbell tomorrow.

I believe in process over results in most circumstances. Especially going into big games I think the goaltender should look like he's in position and confident moving around. Unless it's Hasek. The potential for Campbell to be a total cluster is too great despite a solid run late in the season.

The other reason I go with Skinner tomorrow is it leaves Campbell as a viable backup should Skinner struggle. I think benching Skinner after 3.1 games burns him mentally. If Campbell struggles in game 5, which is definitely possible, that leaves the Oilers with two broken goalies. I leave Campbell chambered for game 6 if they're down 3-2.

The mental side of a goalie is huge. You made Skinner the starter to begin March. To not give him the starts benefit of the doubt after 1 person I don't think helps his mental state and potentially puts doubt in his mind. You can pull Skinner last game and tell him it's not his fault and you need something to wake up the team. Which is 100% true. They needed a spark and like it or not, pulling your starter can often do that and it worked. So you go back to Skinner because he is your guy. If he falters, you have Campbell who for the last 7 weeks has known he's the back up and in that role hopefully is also confident because he came in like back ups do and shut the door.

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821977 is a reply to message #821968 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 17:20

inverno76
Messages: 2340
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...

2 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 16:00

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:15

AndersonRules wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:08

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:04

inverno76 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 14:04

The media is coming out saying Campbell played lights out last night. Maybe I am just jaded, but I saw a pretty shaky goalie who got lucky. Skinner plays a way quieter game normally. I like a goalie who will freeze the puck lots and always make the routine save, even though he's not always on the hi-light reel making a spectacular save.

I agree entirely. I thought he was goaltending on a unicycle while juggling chainsaws. Everything seemed like a scramble around the net.

Love the phrasing! Favorite post of the day!

Nonetheless ... in his last three games, Campbell has 2GA on what, 80 shots or so?
But y'all almost won me over to going back to Skinner with the long-run argument ... though even still, has Skinner given us any indication that he can weather the playoff pressure cooker without wilting? The first 4 games weren't great, and the pressure only increases as the team goes deeper.
My instinct is still to stick with the hotter hand - I'd go back to Campbell tomorrow.

I believe in process over results in most circumstances. Especially going into big games I think the goaltender should look like he's in position and confident moving around. Unless it's Hasek. The potential for Campbell to be a total cluster is too great despite a solid run late in the season.

The other reason I go with Skinner tomorrow is it leaves Campbell as a viable backup should Skinner struggle. I think benching Skinner after 3.1 games burns him mentally. If Campbell struggles in game 5, which is definitely possible, that leaves the Oilers with two broken goalies. I leave Campbell chambered for game 6 if they're down 3-2.

The mental side of a goalie is huge. You made Skinner the starter to begin March. To not give him the starts benefit of the doubt after 1 person I don't think helps his mental state and potentially puts doubt in his mind. You can pull Skinner last game and tell him it's not his fault and you need something to wake up the team. Which is 100% true. They needed a spark and like it or not, pulling your starter can often do that and it worked. So you go back to Skinner because he is your guy. If he falters, you have Campbell who for the last 7 weeks has known he's the back up and in that role hopefully is also confident because he came in like back ups do and shut the door.

Worthey of note, is Jack Campbell mentally strong enough to be thrust into a starters role after 40 minutes of adequate tending?

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #821979 is a reply to message #821977 ]	Mon, 24 April 2023 17:52

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

2 Cups

inverno76 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 17:20

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 16:00

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:15

AndersonRules wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:08

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 15:04

inverno76 wrote on Mon, 24 April 2023 14:04

The media is coming out saying Campbell played lights out last night. Maybe I am just jaded, but I saw a pretty shaky goalie who got lucky. Skinner plays a way quieter game normally. I like a goalie who will freeze the puck lots and always make the routine save, even though he's not always on the hi-light reel making a spectacular save.

I agree entirely. I thought he was goaltending on a unicycle while juggling chainsaws. Everything seemed like a scramble around the net.

Love the phrasing! Favorite post of the day!

Nonetheless ... in his last three games, Campbell has 2GA on what, 80 shots or so?
But y'all almost won me over to going back to Skinner with the long-run argument ... though even still, has Skinner given us any indication that he can weather the playoff pressure cooker without wilting? The first 4 games weren't great, and the pressure only increases as the team goes deeper.
My instinct is still to stick with the hotter hand - I'd go back to Campbell tomorrow.

I believe in process over results in most circumstances. Especially going into big games I think the goaltender should look like he's in position and confident moving around. Unless it's Hasek. The potential for Campbell to be a total cluster is too great despite a solid run late in the season.

The other reason I go with Skinner tomorrow is it leaves Campbell as a viable backup should Skinner struggle. I think benching Skinner after 3.1 games burns him mentally. If Campbell struggles in game 5, which is definitely possible, that leaves the Oilers with two broken goalies. I leave Campbell chambered for game 6 if they're down 3-2.

The mental side of a goalie is huge. You made Skinner the starter to begin March. To not give him the starts benefit of the doubt after 1 person I don't think helps his mental state and potentially puts doubt in his mind. You can pull Skinner last game and tell him it's not his fault and you need something to wake up the team. Which is 100% true. They needed a spark and like it or not, pulling your starter can often do that and it worked. So you go back to Skinner because he is your guy. If he falters, you have Campbell who for the last 7 weeks has known he's the back up and in that role hopefully is also confident because he came in like back ups do and shut the door.

Worthey of note, is Jack Campbell mentally strong enough to be thrust into a starters role after 40 minutes of adequate tending?

All this talk of shakiness in the playoffs regarding both goalies. Rebounds too. Remember Mike Smith? He gave me fits most nights last spring.

In 3.33 playoff games I’ve found Skinner to be very average. Average might not cut it with our D in the postseason. I think Campbell has a heater run in him. I really do. But Woody would look pretty bad if he sent him out there for game 5 and he soiled the sheets. Skinner will likely start, but I doubt we have seen the last of Jack Campbell in the playoffs. Possibly this very series.

I would keep Skinner's leash very short. Hope he finally takes command of his crease in game 5.

[Updated on: Mon, 24 April 2023 18:08]

#firebob #screwitjustselltheteam #ownerisacreep

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

Pages (4): [ « < 1 2 3 4 > »]

Previous Topic:	Pregame: Los Angeles @ Edmonton (Game #5)
Next Topic:	Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #3)

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