OilFans.com :: Fan Forum: Oilers => Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1)

Guest

This day on April 22
None

Happy Birthday To: JenessaSchafer, vk_krusher, steve.kreys

OILERS INFO OILFANS
Tuesday, Apr 22, 2025 12:36 PM MT

F.A.Q.

Members

Home

Oilers » Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1)

Pages (2): [1 2 > »]

Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842875]	Mon, 21 April 2025 22:30

OilFans
Messages: 1743
Registered: February 2006
Location: Edmonton

1 Cup

6 Final

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

Edmonton to win: 50%
Los Angeles to win: 50%
8 entries View all picks Leaderboard

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842923 is a reply to message #842875 ]	Mon, 21 April 2025 23:05

tardigrade81
Messages: 2976
Registered: November 2022
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan

2 Cups

Don't care what anyone says

Start Pickard next game

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842927 is a reply to message #842923 ]	Mon, 21 April 2025 23:08

HamBlaster
Messages: 1112
Registered: June 2007

1 Cup

Can we pack Skinner up and send him home? The guy is the definition of momentum-killer and sieve.

Nice effort to get back into the game from the rest of the squad, but when you have playoff Swiss cheese in net, you're not going to go far.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842973 is a reply to message #842927 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 10:52

Rowan Oil Fielding
Messages: 361
Registered: July 2018

No Cups

HamBlaster wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 06:08

Every remotely sentient hockey fan has known Skinner isn't good enough to get Edmonton over the edge. How dumb is management seriously? They've legit had bottom 5 management for like 10 years , their plan has always been let's hope McDavid can go 3ppg and save us. Everybody who is involved with Stuart Skinner being the starter in Mcdavid’s prime needs to never have a job in hockey again..

[Updated on: Tue, 22 April 2025 10:57]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842975 is a reply to message #842973 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 10:58

Kr55
Messages: 11349
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Rowan Oil Fielding wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 10:52

HamBlaster wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 06:08

This org very clearly does not understand the goalie position. Lazily keeping the same goalie coach for 11 years while every goalie under him declines except Mike Smith who had his own coach. Going all in on Jack Campbell. Tossing Koskinen a 2 year rich deal for 1 month of decent work. All in on the breaking down holding off retirement Mike Smith as a starter. A never dying belief that Skinner is the answer.

We just insist on letting goaltending be the 5th thing on the orgs mind. Apparently wingers remained #1 last summer.

[Updated on: Tue, 22 April 2025 10:59]

"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 #1) [message #842976 is a reply to message #842975 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 11:08

CrusaderPi
Messages: 7995
Registered: December 2003
Location: Downtown Edmonton

6 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 10:58

[ Tossing Koskinen a 2 year rich deal for 1 month of decent work.

This was a 3 year deal where the GM got fired 27 hours after it was signed.

I still think Koskinen wasn't that bad here, the organization just hated him because he was signed (in secret?) by Chiarelli.

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 #1) [message #842982 is a reply to message #842976 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 11:52

Kr55
Messages: 11349
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 11:08

Kr55 wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 10:58

[ Tossing Koskinen a 2 year rich deal for 1 month of decent work.

Oh yeah, 3 years for 1 good month, and he was even tailing off when we started the negotiation on the extension and no one seemed to care.

He was another super fragile goalie that should have been making backup money. Another guy that would just sap the teams confidence as they watched him moping in the net. Org seems to love those guys for whatever reason. Or maybe it's just that those are the guys that are were easily available for us to toss some money at, like Campbell.

[Updated on: Tue, 22 April 2025 11:55]

"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 #1) [message #842928 is a reply to message #842923 ]	Mon, 21 April 2025 23:10

watchman
Messages: 1712
Registered: October 2019
Location: River City

1 Cup

tardigrade81 wrote on Mon, 21 April 2025 23:05

Don't care what anyone says

Start Pickard next game

...hard to argue with letting in 6. PICKS can not be worse. ...and probably better.
icon_frown

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

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842937 is a reply to message #842928 ]	Mon, 21 April 2025 23:14

Leia
Messages: 429
Registered: May 2003
Location: England

No Cups

You know what, we may have lost but we are in the Kings head for sure. They felt they were home and dry at 4-0. To come back as we did, with a team that is far from healthy, with players due back soon they'll be thinking we got lucky tonight.

Got to keep our heads and stop taking stupid penalties, but that 5 on 3 kill was important, not just for tonight but the series. It should give us some confidence.

Peeved we lost after the come back, but more positives than negatives.

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 #1) [message #842939 is a reply to message #842937 ]	Mon, 21 April 2025 23:18

Mike
Messages: 1466
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

1 Cup

Leia wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 02:14

Got to keep our heads and stop taking stupid penalties

lol - you have got to be kidding. We need refs to call a fair game. This was bush league.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842931 is a reply to message #842923 ]	Mon, 21 April 2025 23:10

Jay
Messages: 754
Registered: January 2007
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

tardigrade81 wrote on Mon, 21 April 2025 23:05

Don't care what anyone says

Start Pickard next game

I think they will.

Knoblauch likes Skinner but I think he likes being an NHL coach too.

"Initiative comes to thems that wait"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842942 is a reply to message #842931 ]	Mon, 21 April 2025 23:23

Mike
Messages: 1466
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

1 Cup

Jay wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 02:10

tardigrade81 wrote on Mon, 21 April 2025 23:05

Don't care what anyone says

Start Pickard next game

I think they will.

Knoblauch likes Skinner but I think he likes being an NHL coach too.

What the hell is your problem with our boy Stu? Did you not check the stats? .800 tonight!!! For every goal he let in, he stopped a whopping 4 shots! Top shelf stuff right here.

Not sure about the GA, but something over 6. Too late here to calculate.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842951 is a reply to message #842942 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 05:41

Hibernia
Messages: 130
Registered: October 1998
Location: Sin John's

No Cups

Mike wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 02:53

Jay wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 02:10

tardigrade81 wrote on Mon, 21 April 2025 23:05

Don't care what anyone says

Start Pickard next game

I think they will.

Knoblauch likes Skinner but I think he likes being an NHL coach too.

Two of the Kings' goals were lucky.

Given that the important players on this team haven't played much lately (including Skinner) I'd be putting the same team back on the ice on Wednesday with the exception of 44.

What happened to all of my messages? lol (I guess it's been awhile) BlueSky: StefBarnes

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842952 is a reply to message #842951 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 06:01

NZ Oiler Fan
Messages: 1299
Registered: October 2006
Location: Kensington, PEI

1 Cup

Didn't expect to see that result this morning after going to bed at 4-0. Amazing that we managed to tie it up at 5s.

Kings had a LOT of things go their way that game. Lucky bounce on the GWG, Stu letting in a couple he'd want back, Bouch gifting them two, the refs calling the game heavily in their favour...and they only managed to win by a lucky one.

That's gotta give our boys confidence heading into game 2. Sit Brown for Dineen, and switch Janmark for Kane.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842953 is a reply to message #842951 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 06:26

Mike
Messages: 1466
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

1 Cup

Hibernia wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 08:41

Two of the Kings' goals were lucky.

It's always the same story though isn't it? "Lucky", "no chance", etc...

The reality is that he rarely ever comes up big and stop something he had "no chance" on like many other Cup winning goalies do, and too often he lets in back breaking stinkers. He's slow as hell moving East-West, doesn't cover his post, and far too often overplays and is left out of position and scrambling.

His career playoff save % is .891. The worst of any goalie this century who has played as much as him. If we set the line at 20 games, only Dan Cloutier is worse (.872). The only 2 with >=20GP and <.900.

I was shocked to realize that Skinner is now #3 all time for Oilers playoffs games started. His 36 is 4 more than Andy Moog, and only 3 less than Bill Ranford's 39 (miles away from Fuhr's 109 though).

If this guy had, at some point been elite at the NHL level, I could understand the belief so many have in him. But as it is, he has never been all that good - in fact he's often been very bad.

TEAM PICKARD!

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842955 is a reply to message #842953 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 08:30

Hibernia
Messages: 130
Registered: October 1998
Location: Sin John's

No Cups

Mike wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 09:56

Hibernia wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 08:41

Two of the Kings' goals were lucky.

he has never been all that good

Never. No b'y. I guess that was a different Skinner in the nets last post-season. He doesn't need to be an elite goalie. He's needs to be this team's version of Osgood with the Wings or Vernon with the Flames. This team wasn't built to win games in their own end. It was built to win games on offence. On those sorts of teams, the goalie often gets hung out to dry.

It's always easy to pick on the goalie, the last player to make a mistake.

Could Skinner make an additional save here or there? Sure. But last night, both goalies had an .800 save percentage and the Kings are supposed to be a top defensive team. And, I don't recall any of the Oilers goals being of the lucky variety. So, who was the better goalie last night? It's not necessarily the guy who got the W.

If Skinner is getting pulled for his effort, I assume you also think that the Kings should be putting Rittach in net for Game 2 as well.

What happened to all of my messages? lol (I guess it's been awhile) BlueSky: StefBarnes

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842956 is a reply to message #842955 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 09:09

CrusaderPi
Messages: 7995
Registered: December 2003
Location: Downtown Edmonton

6 Cups

They can't panic after game 1. Starting the backup in the playoffs is a last chance desperation play that leaves no plan c if it fails. Down 0-2 (or even 1-2) makes a lot more sense.

[Updated on: Tue, 22 April 2025 09:18]

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 #1) [message #842957 is a reply to message #842956 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 09:14

Kr55
Messages: 11349
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 09:09

The can't panic after game 1. Starting the backup in the playoffs is a last chance desperation play that leaves no plan c if it fails. Down 0-2 (or even 1-2) makes a lot more sense.

I feel like our players give Pickard the "Smith" treatment, in the form of better efforts in front of him. But peak performance, Skinner can still put up more impressive games. Pickard is consistent, but consistently performs like a career backup goalie.

You know our most tenured coach is always going to be pushing for Skinner starts, so I think it'll take a complete meltdown before we play Pickard.

I really hope at some point in the McDrai age we take goaltending seriously.

"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 #1) [message #842959 is a reply to message #842956 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 09:30

Adam
Messages: 7347
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 09:09

The can't panic after game 1. Starting the backup in the playoffs is a last chance desperation play that leaves no plan c if it fails. Down 0-2 (or even 1-2) makes a lot more sense.

Completely agree with this. Understand the sentiment, and wish that management had taken the goaltending issues seriously prior to this, but they decided that they'd prefer to have a traditional starter/back-up tandem and that's what they have. There isn't much of a Plan B.

Pickard played in 36 games this year starting 31 of them. That's the most starts or appearances he's had since 2016-17. He's almost never had to play back-to-back games in many years, so expecting him to play the next 20-odd games is probably a stretch. And how did he do? Well, his .900 sv% and 2.71 GAA aren't stellar. He's tied for 30th in save percentage among goalies with 20 or more starts.

And if you dig a layer deeper, here is how he did against playoff teams this year:

Winnipeg - 6-0 L (in relief, 1 GA on 7 shots)
New Jersey - 3-0 L
Montreal - 3-0 L
Minnesota 5-3 W
Colorado - 5-4 L
Washington - 7-3 L
Carolina - 3-1 W
Winnipeg - 4-3 OTL
Vegas - 3-2 W
Los Angeles - 3-0 L
St Louis - 4-3 W
Los Angeles - 5-0 L

He also played 6 scoreless minutes in a loss to Dallas after Skinner got hurt. For those keeping track, that's 4-6-1 not including the relief appearance. He ate up the also-rans, going 18-4-0 against non-playoff teams, but against contenders, he's not shown well, including two big losses to the Kings down the stretch.

The coach hasn't trusted him much to play against the good teams either - Of his 10 starts against playoff teams, 3 of them came when Knoblauch had really no other choice.

Skinner's numbers are worse than Pickard's but he's also played all the good teams, and left most of the games against the scrubs to his backup (again showing that the Oilers have fully embraced the 1990s approach to goaltending).

There's a chance that Skinner gets hot and goes on a run. We've seen it before. It's a possibility at least. There's just very little chance that Pickard can be that guy.

And as CrusaderPi says, if you switch now it just looks like panic. You have to give 74 back the ball and hope he can run with it. And if he can't, then fire everyone in management for blowing this.

"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 #1) [message #842962 is a reply to message #842959 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 10:07

Mike
Messages: 1466
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

1 Cup

Adam wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 12:30

Skinner's numbers are worse than Pickard's but he's also played all the good teams, and left most of the games against the scrubs to his backup (again showing that the Oilers have fully embraced the 1990s approach to goaltending).

The only apples to apples comparison I can think of is against Vancouver last year. Playoffs, mostly the same roster on both team for all 7 games.

Skinner: 283 minutes played, 15 goals against. .833, 3.18
Pickard: 136 minutes played, 5 goals against. .915, 2.21

I get the trepidation about Pickard being a career backup. But what the hell has Skinner done to give you so much faith in him?

Pickard played great in the playoffs last year.

That go ahead goal by Garland last year in game 1 - NONE of the ones on Pickard were close to that bad. I just watched the 5 goals Skinner let in that game.

First one, out of position and slow to get across.
Second, scored from behind the net. Stinky
Third, post not sealed (crazy how many go in on him there)
Fourth, that one was pretty good. Good shot from the point, lots of bodies, may have deflected.
And that famous fifth goal by Garland - just brutal.

And for fun I went to look at the 5 Pickard let in over 2+ games

First - screened and deflected twice. No chance.
Second - 5 people in and around the crease and bounced off a leg. Not much chance
Third - Bunch of bodies in front and screened. Probably the most stoppable of the 5. Looked like the 4th on Skinner from game 1.
4th - Bouchard serves up a huge pepperoni pizza from point blank. No chance.
5th - crazy hard deflection off Petterson's skate on a hard pass across, off the post and right onto Miller's stick. No chance.

You could argue that Skinner has had more great games than Pickard (I don't necessarily agree, but MAYBE). But Skinner lets in a LOT more bad goals than Pickard. They are just killers. Pickard, though he may not stand on his head (he has a few times), he doesn't let in many bad goals. He is closer to the Osgood type guy we need IMO than Skinner.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842969 is a reply to message #842962 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 10:32

Adam
Messages: 7347
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Mike wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 10:07

Adam wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 12:30

To be fair, I don't have faith in Stuart Skinner. I would have traded him when he was a Calder candidate after watching him stumble in the playoffs versus Vegas when his value was probably at its peak. I was advocating for that at the time.

In 2021 I would have thanked the hockey gods when Jesper Wallstedt fell to the Oilers rather than trading backwards for Xavier Bourgault (who, incidentally, we traded for a guy who only got in 2 AHL games all year).

I would have replaced Pickard with a guy who had a chance to be a 1A at least so that Skinner was pushed and challenged and if he fumbled he lost the net - both last year and this year. Failing to do that, and watching Skinner's start to this season, I would have addressed that position with one of the several different options that changed hands this year - including if need be selling a lot at the deadline to pick up someone else so that we aren't precisely in this position.

But we didn't, so we have what we have - a fragile hot-and-cold starter who could blow a series single-handedly, or who could get hot and win a bunch in a row and an aged backup who has never had great numbers in his entire career and played very little post-season games at any level.

It's really poor management to get to this point, but we are where we are. Skinner is the starter by design. The team has not wanted a 1A and has only provided a back-up behind him. They haven't done much for a #3 either. Rodrique regressing on the farm this year and I wonder if he even gets a contract offer this summer from the team.

If we're going to completely tear up the plan and go with the guy who's got nothing in his whole long career that suggests he's the kind of goalie you can win a Cup with, then that's sheer panic. I think if you've spent three years convincing yourself that Skinner is the only starter you need, then you need to give him more than one game before you throw the team's hopes behind Pickard.

If we'd got a different back-up who was younger/had more promise/had played some high level, high stakes hockey at any point in his history/tended to win games against good teams instead of losing them/etc. etc. etc. then I'm on board with a quick switch. This isn't exactly an Ullmark/Swayman decision though.

"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 #1) [message #842972 is a reply to message #842969 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 10:44

Mike
Messages: 1466
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

1 Cup

Adam wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 13:32

Vegas? Those idiots that had Broissoit AND Thompson AND Hill and went and picked up Quick at the deadline? What a bunch of idiots. They already had 3 NHL goalies and went and got another. A former Conn Smythe and Cup winning goalie. For the hefty sum of an AHL goalie and a 7th round pick (and the Jackets retained 50% to boot).

Adam wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 13:32

This isn't exactly an Ullmark/Swayman decision though.

You're right. Pickard is clearly much better. You just don't like him because he was born in Moncton.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842963 is a reply to message #842956 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 10:08

Jay
Messages: 754
Registered: January 2007
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 09:09

They can't panic after game 1. Starting the backup in the playoffs is a last chance desperation play that leaves no plan c if it fails. Down 0-2 (or even 1-2) makes a lot more sense.

I don't get this. Why is Skinner the undisputed unquestionable starter? Based on what? If he is bad (and he always is in the playoffs) then play the guy who gives you a better chance to win. Who are we talking about here? He's that fragile that the only reason to ever not start him is if he's so unmistakably awful that there's no other option? We've seen this movie before. If pickard plays and he is as bad or worse than what you can expect from Skinner (doubtful but sure it could happen) then go back to Skinner at home. This is Stu Skinner we are talking about not prime brodeur. He can take a night off when he isn't good.

"Initiative comes to thems that wait"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842966 is a reply to message #842963 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 10:16

CrusaderPi
Messages: 7995
Registered: December 2003
Location: Downtown Edmonton

6 Cups

Jay wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 10:08

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 09:09

They can't panic after game 1. Starting the backup in the playoffs is a last chance desperation play that leaves no plan c if it fails. Down 0-2 (or even 1-2) makes a lot more sense.

He's the unquestioned starter because he flat out beat Campbell for the job and the other competitors are Pickard and Rodrique. There are simply no other options. Personally, I wouldn't have trusted either with McDavid's age 28 season, but here we are. Pickard is the only other card to play, so the coach better play it at the right time.

Looking back with hindsight a Bruins alternating game split might have been a better choice for this season.

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 #1) [message #842968 is a reply to message #842966 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 10:24

Jay
Messages: 754
Registered: January 2007
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 10:16

Jay wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 10:08

CrusaderPi wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 09:09

They can't panic after game 1. Starting the backup in the playoffs is a last chance desperation play that leaves no plan c if it fails. Down 0-2 (or even 1-2) makes a lot more sense.

Do you recall round 1 2023? Did he outplay Campbell? They kept playing 74 and it almost cost them the series. And he was unbelievably probably worse in the next round. Meanwhile the guy who gave them the better chance to win sat on the bench because god forbid skinner not be given every conceivable opportunity.

And they have been basically alternating the last 6 weeks or so - due to injury yes but playing pickard at this point isn't some crazy reach. The team is comfortable with him and IMO he gives them a better chance to win than 74.

Anyway pickard is going to play at some point. Just a question of how deep of a hole do they dig before they do it.

If you think an alternating split would have been better than what are we talking about? He's the number 1 because it gets repeated a bunch?

[Updated on: Tue, 22 April 2025 10:31]

"Initiative comes to thems that wait"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842971 is a reply to message #842968 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 10:40

Adam
Messages: 7347
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Jay wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 10:24

This is pretty revisionist.

Campbell was a complete basketcase here. He was completely dreadful all season, and while he got one big win in relief against the Kings, even there he was a circus. He looked beatable ALL the time...just flopped around and it somehow worked out.

It's notable that he was very quickly in the NHL's substance abuse program shortly after his time here. Either he was struggling because of some addictions or he self-medicated due to some of his failures at the time, but I think it's pretty clear that he wasn't in the mental head space to play here and certainly not to take us to the Finals.

Again - it was a massive failure of the Oilers to have the two options be a raw rookie and a guy who was clearly an error to sign.

"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 #1) [message #842974 is a reply to message #842971 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 10:53

Jay
Messages: 754
Registered: January 2007
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 10:40

Jay wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 10:24

It's not revisionist. I said at the time that they should have gone back to Campbell that series. Because he stopped pucks and gave the team a better chance to win.

Speaking of looking beatable all the time - Skinner might be the slowest NHL goalie I've ever seen. Im guessing the other team notices as well. Not ideal.

[Updated on: Tue, 22 April 2025 10:54]

"Initiative comes to thems that wait"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842978 is a reply to message #842974 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 11:19

Adam
Messages: 7347
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Jay wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 10:53

Adam wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 10:40

Jay wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 10:24

In the Vegas series, where Skinner got pulled every game, I was on board with that. In the LA series, where Skinner mostly was fine and we beat a beatable team? I would not have gone with the guy who had a 3.45 GAA and .888 sv% through the regular season while losing his job to a rookie and who was most famous before coming to Edmonton for imploding in the playoffs with the Leafs.

Campbell was just an awful netminder for the Oilers.

"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 #1) [message #842980 is a reply to message #842978 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 11:29

Mike
Messages: 1466
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

1 Cup

Adam wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 14:19

Campbell was just an awful netminder for the Oilers.

Except for those playoffs where Campbell had far and away the best save % (.961, 2nd was Hill with .932) and the best GAA (1.01, 2nd was Anderson with 1.83)

Super small sample size of course, but still. He was objectively better than Skinner in that year's playoffs.

I can't believe after getting pulled for a 3rd time in 2 series they yet again went back to Skinner for game 6 where he was yet again pulled after 2 periods.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842960 is a reply to message #842955 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 09:35

Mike
Messages: 1466
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

1 Cup

Hibernia wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 11:30

Mike wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 09:56

Hibernia wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 08:41

Two of the Kings' goals were lucky.

he has never been all that good

I'm not interested in having a pissing contest - I really don't want or need to be "right" about any of this stuff. I just want the Oilers to win. That's it.

That said, to my eye and by the numbers, Skinner is simply not the guy in my opinion. Yes we got to game 7 of the finals last year, but Bouchard and McDavid set all time records on the way there. Don't imagine Skinner got much consideration for the Conn Smythe.

2 years ago he got pulled what, 4 times? Once against the Kings and then amazingly 3 times against Vegas! And then again last year once against the Canucks. He probably should have been pulled after the 2nd last night

I concede I've never played goalie and am by no means an expert - but what I see is a guy who is always overplays and ends up out of position, maybe the slowest guy I have ever seen going east-west, and I think maybe the one that frustrates me the most, for some reason he never seals the post.

We could win the Cup with him in net, but that's because we have one of the NHL's all time best up front. We win in spite of him.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842925 is a reply to message #842875 ]	Mon, 21 April 2025 23:07

Kr55
Messages: 11349
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Ridiculous game. Hope we can start the next one looking like we actually belong in the playoffs. Get the split.

"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 #1) [message #842933 is a reply to message #842875 ]	Mon, 21 April 2025 23:11

g2k
Messages: 2916
Registered: January 2003
Location: The Hood

2 Cups

5 against Keumper in his own rink.

There’s that.

Start Pickard.

#firebob #screwitjustselltheteam #ownerisacreep

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842936 is a reply to message #842875 ]	Mon, 21 April 2025 23:13

cpcos
Messages: 40
Registered: March 2013

No Cups

We don’t deserve this wonder McDavid…. He’s so unlucky to end up to a Canadian team…. and Oilers nonetheless….
Skinner doesn’t belong in Nhl…

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842938 is a reply to message #842875 ]	Mon, 21 April 2025 23:17

smyth260
Messages: 1154
Registered: November 2007

1 Cup

You get what you deserve when you roll into the playoffs with sub .900 goaltending and no plan B. All those analytics hires, McDavid’s old agent at the helm, a 3 time cup winning GM…And the play was to go with this uninspiring duo of goaltending..

We may win the series yet, but any run is going to be harder than it needs to be.

Waste of a 4 pt game from 97.

[Updated on: Mon, 21 April 2025 23:20]

Clean house or bust

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842984 is a reply to message #842938 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 11:55

Rowan Oil Fielding
Messages: 361
Registered: July 2018

No Cups

smyth260 wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 06:17

The Oilers no show for half the game, then the world bares witness to McDavid driving one of the best clutch playoff moments lifting his team incredulously off the ice into a late tie game. Bad coaching to keep a tired elite group on ice instead of a fresh group to lock in and take momentum into OT. At minimum Nurse needs to be out there to help lock down their defending support. Hugely missed Ekholm in that situational moment.

But ultimately this game was largely unravelled by poor goaltending with slow reads and movement. Aided and abetted by sloppy, poor decision making in front of him. It's never easy for this team which is often self induced whether management ignoring a critical positional weakness or on-ice with costly decision making. McDavid almost bailed them out.
But almost only counts in horshoes and grenades.

We have to wait and see where this goes for game 2. Five goals on an incredible comeback has to build momentum ... doesn't it?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842985 is a reply to message #842984 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 12:04

CrusaderPi
Messages: 7995
Registered: December 2003
Location: Downtown Edmonton

6 Cups

Rowan Oil Fielding wrote on Tue, 22 April 2025 11:55

We have to wait and see where this goes for game 2. Five goals on an incredible comeback has to build momentum ... doesn't it?

Or the Sisyphean task of pushing the bad tending, defense, and depth up the playoff hill over and over again only to have it all come crashing down the second the good players are on the bench becomes too much to bear so the whole team becomes emotionally unstable lacking in self-belief and doubting their ability to succeed in the face of a decade's worth of overwhelming obstacles blocking the path for no reason other than the malaise of seemingly uncaring higher power.

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 #1) [message #842943 is a reply to message #842875 ]	Mon, 21 April 2025 23:26

Kr55
Messages: 11349
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Taking a moment to realize how hard Danault owned us tonight.

Whining about oilers holding sticks in the media somehow leads to the refs calling a phantom stick hold penalty on us, right at the start of the game, for LA's first goal. Kulak never even touched the stick, he just had an arm out like lots of players do all night.

His head flop while getting a cross check in the chest, like many D to after the whistle on players being aggressive in the crease, draws a 5 on 3 call for another instant goal.

Scores 2 goals himself including the fluke GWG.

Just so gross. Don't let this happen again Oilers.

[Updated on: Mon, 21 April 2025 23:28]

"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 #1) [message #842947 is a reply to message #842943 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 00:15

Adam
Messages: 7347
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Defencemen ice time tonight:

Bouchard - 28:20
Nurse - 25:17
Kulak - 24:58
Walman - 19:35
Emberson - 13:10
J. Brown - 4:54

This is unsustainable, especially if we get in to some overtime games. The Oilers can't afford to play Brown again, and they need to give a little more trust down the roster. If we roll 3 defencemen out for 25+ minutes a night, they're going to break down and they're going to make mistakes when they tire out.

On forward, Frederic with only 9:11 tonight...still doesn't look healthy. Maybe he should come out if Kane goes in and rest up.

"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 #1) [message #842948 is a reply to message #842947 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 00:26

Skookum Jim
Messages: 4788
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

4 Cups

Adam wrote on Mon, 21 April 2025 23:15

They even had Dermott if Klingberg wasn't ready.. and at least Dineen has showed he has a good puck IQ and can skate, move the puck.. Knob and the defensive coaches chunked that one.. inserting Brown.. I think I blame the defensive coaches more.. Stuart and ☕ .. they obviously OK'd it.

[Updated on: Tue, 22 April 2025 02:28]

McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!! (Thank you Lord!)
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World

Report message to a moderator

Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #1) [message #842949 is a reply to message #842948 ]	Tue, 22 April 2025 01:12

nullterm
Messages: 1075
Registered: July 2007
Location: Port Moody, BC

1 Cup

Knoblauch is either winning a cup or getting fired this summer. Nothing in between. Bad decision after bad decision, but McDavid almost saved his skin. Could have easily been Paul Coffey coming out in the 3rd period as new head coach.

Skinner… is either about to go on a tear as he usually does after 2/3 awful games or you need to ride Pickard. The whole team spent the whole game waking up realizing they are in the playoffs, but he wasn’t holding the team in while they did.

Oilers are the Schrödinger's cat of the playoffs, you have no idea if you are opening a box to a live or dead cat.

No panic yet. If they pull out a game 2 win in LA we’re rolling.

[Updated on: Tue, 22 April 2025 01:15]

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Report message to a moderator

Pages (2): [1 2 > »]

Next Topic:

Round 1 vs LA Part IV

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