Mike wrote on Mon, 13 May 2024 10:31

CrusaderPi wrote on Mon, 13 May 2024 12:43 In any event Silovs and Hill's success is not an argument for Pickard. You only start Pickard if you think he gives you a better chance for success behind the Oilers D than Skinner. If anyone believes that, fine. I'll accept the argument. If you're just hoping a change somehow makes everything better the season is probably already lost. I agree with you. It's not a hill I would die on - I (like most on this fan forum I would assume) am emotionally invested in this team's results, and I don't have much confidence in Skinner. I don't believe Pickard would be any worse. Sure he could come in and let in the first 5 shots - but so far in his career, he has the best playoff stats in NHL history. And Skinner amongst the worst. The very worst by a lot in the cap era. Pulled in literally 25% of his starts. If Pickard comes in and doesn't give us the big stops, or worse, lets in a couple soft ones, then you go back to Skinner. But just how a goalie change can sometimes energize a team during a game, maybe it does the same for the series. I just don't see a whole lot to lose by trying it - we're not taking out a guy on a heater or with any kind of playoff success.

This is one of those areas where if we had to go to anyone as the guy to save the season, I'd want it to be Rodrigue. He at least has an untapped ceiling and you could hope for him to rise to the occasion. He's not a 32-year old who no one has ever trusted to play a minute of playoff hockey before.

The crazy thing is that the Oilers didn't even call that player back up. He's off in Mexico sipping margaritas or something now and Jack Campbell is the other back-up plan (and took a ton of development time away from young Oliver this season). We don't really plan for contingencies the way a team like Vegas does.

"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