This day on July 20
None

Happy Birthday To: wags

F.A.Q. Terms of Use F.A.Q. F.A.Q.
Members Members   Search Search     Register Register   Login Login   Home Home
 Oilers » Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4)Pages (2): [ «  <  1  2]
Switch to flat viewSwitch to tree viewCreate a new topicSubmit Reply
 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832783 is a reply to message #832780 ]
Tue, 30 April 2024 12:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

JPro wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 11:07

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 12:20


Skinner in the last 2 games, in my opinion, helped back up my point that the sample size you were using wasn't big enough because he was outstanding in the last 2 games. So it's clear in my opinion, he has the ability to be a good goalie in the playoffs.


"My sample size of two is better than yours of fourteen"

Don't go planning the Conn Smythe debate already because he's doing well against a team the Oilers dominate regularly.

Again, not what I said what so ever. I said the 2 games he just played showed he has the capability to play well in the playoffs. Then said right after. The next thing I said he needs to do is to show he can do it again and again.

Feel free to actually READ what I said vs immediately making up complete lies.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832784 is a reply to message #832783 ]
Tue, 30 April 2024 12:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7042
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 12:12

JPro wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 11:07

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 12:20


Skinner in the last 2 games, in my opinion, helped back up my point that the sample size you were using wasn't big enough because he was outstanding in the last 2 games. So it's clear in my opinion, he has the ability to be a good goalie in the playoffs.


"My sample size of two is better than yours of fourteen"

Don't go planning the Conn Smythe debate already because he's doing well against a team the Oilers dominate regularly.

Again, not what I said what so ever. I said the 2 games he just played showed he has the capability to play well in the playoffs. Then said right after. The next thing I said he needs to do is to show he can do it again and again.

Feel free to actually READ what I said vs immediately making up complete lies.


I don’t think you’ve adequately staked out your position on Skinner. I mean, you can’t really refute the hard numbers that Mike has posted so do you have another argument? Is there perhaps a player or two in the last 18-20 years who had horrid playoff numbers in their first 14 games and then went on to win a Cup? Is there something in the way he played through last playoffs and this which has given you great confidence that he’s going to backstop us to a Cup?


I’d like to hear your full thoughts here.



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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832785 is a reply to message #832784 ]
Tue, 30 April 2024 14:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
inverno76  is currently offline inverno76
Messages: 2301
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...

2 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 12:56

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 12:12

JPro wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 11:07

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 12:20


Skinner in the last 2 games, in my opinion, helped back up my point that the sample size you were using wasn't big enough because he was outstanding in the last 2 games. So it's clear in my opinion, he has the ability to be a good goalie in the playoffs.


"My sample size of two is better than yours of fourteen"

Don't go planning the Conn Smythe debate already because he's doing well against a team the Oilers dominate regularly.

Again, not what I said what so ever. I said the 2 games he just played showed he has the capability to play well in the playoffs. Then said right after. The next thing I said he needs to do is to show he can do it again and again.

Feel free to actually READ what I said vs immediately making up complete lies.


I don’t think you’ve adequately staked out your position on Skinner. I mean, you can’t really refute the hard numbers that Mike has posted so do you have another argument? Is there perhaps a player or two in the last 18-20 years who had horrid playoff numbers in their first 14 games and then went on to win a Cup? Is there something in the way he played through last playoffs and this which has given you great confidence that he’s going to backstop us to a Cup?


I’d like to hear your full thoughts here.


I am sure there is a resource out there that breaks down the first 14 games of a goalies playoff career, but I do not know know where to find one. I am toeing the the middle line on this one. I really like Skinner when he is on his game, and I do see his flaws (lateral movement is still slow). He brings a calmness to the game that I have not seen since Dubnyk (prior to his inability to make a first save).

14 games is a small sample size and to be fair he was mismanaged as a rookie. He was swimming in the deep end, and his floatation device was a piece of cheese cloth we will call Jack Campbell. Game 1 this year was not as bad as the numbers suggested and he fell victim to 3 fluke goals. Game 2 was a lesson in suckitude. Games 3 and 4 were good too, I would even say really good. I would use the argument that Skinner is a very resilient goalie who is mentally strong. After last years playoffs and the horrendous start to this season there was very few reasons to believe that we would have Stu winning playoff games as a our starter in the playoffs.

Skinner finished the season at .905 save percentage after having a .865 up until the Capitals shut out game, 13 games. He then went on to play at a .916 pace which is good enough to win any series behind this offense. Skinner had some dog games along the way, but only lost back to back starts 3 times.

Long story short. I am very optimistic, and if the team in front of him commit to playing a controlled game they will have a great shot at winning a championship. I also understand people's skepticism. Most people need to see the proof, which is not unreasonable. This team does not need a star goalie. It needs a dependable goalie. I would love for Skinner to be prime Chris Osgood, with the same Cup rings.

[Updated on: Tue, 30 April 2024 14:54]


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832787 is a reply to message #832785 ]
Tue, 30 April 2024 15:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7042
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

inverno76 wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 14:25

Adam wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 12:56

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 12:12

JPro wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 11:07

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 12:20


Skinner in the last 2 games, in my opinion, helped back up my point that the sample size you were using wasn't big enough because he was outstanding in the last 2 games. So it's clear in my opinion, he has the ability to be a good goalie in the playoffs.


"My sample size of two is better than yours of fourteen"

Don't go planning the Conn Smythe debate already because he's doing well against a team the Oilers dominate regularly.

Again, not what I said what so ever. I said the 2 games he just played showed he has the capability to play well in the playoffs. Then said right after. The next thing I said he needs to do is to show he can do it again and again.

Feel free to actually READ what I said vs immediately making up complete lies.


I don’t think you’ve adequately staked out your position on Skinner. I mean, you can’t really refute the hard numbers that Mike has posted so do you have another argument? Is there perhaps a player or two in the last 18-20 years who had horrid playoff numbers in their first 14 games and then went on to win a Cup? Is there something in the way he played through last playoffs and this which has given you great confidence that he’s going to backstop us to a Cup?


I’d like to hear your full thoughts here.


I am sure there is a resource out there that breaks down the first 14 games of a goalies playoff career, but I do not know know where to find one. I am toeing the the middle line on this one. I really like Skinner when he is on his game, and I do see his flaws (lateral movement is still slow). He brings a calmness to the game that I have not seen since Dubnyk (prior to his inability to make a first save).

14 games is a small sample size and to be fair he was mismanaged as a rookie. He was swimming in the deep end, and his floatation device was a piece of cheese cloth we will call Jack Campbell. Game 1 this year was not as bad as the numbers suggested and he fell victim to 3 fluke goals. Game 2 was a lesson in suckitude. Games 3 and 4 were good too, I would even say really good. I would use the argument that Skinner is a very resilient goalie who is mentally strong. After last years playoffs and the horrendous start to this season there was very few reasons to believe that we would have Stu winning playoff games as a our starter in the playoffs.

Skinner finished the season at .905 save percentage after having a .865 up until the Capitals shut out game, 13 games. He then went on to play at a .916 pace which is good enough to win any series behind this offense. Skinner had some dog games along the way, but only lost back to back starts 3 times.

Long story short. I am very optimistic, and if the team in front of him commit to playing a controlled game they will have a great shot at winning a championship. I also understand people's skepticism. Most people need to see the proof, which is not unreasonable. This team does not need a star goalie. It needs a dependable goalie. I would love for Skinner to be prime Chris Osgood, with the same Cup rings.



I hope you're right. I do think that the management hasn't ever done Skinner any favours. He was overplayed down the stretch last year - a big error on the part of Woodcroft as we gambled trying to win the conference. The thing that worries me most about Skinner is what we saw in those playoffs though - when his confidence is shaken, he struggles to overcome it and can let in goals in bunches. I hope the last couple of games were good builders for his confidence. The Kings have a bit of a popgun offence that we're not likely to see in future series, but still if that's good for anything it's building personal belief.

On the management side, the Oilers created a situation last year where we had to rely on a rookie goalie going in to the playoffs with no safety net. They decided that despite his faltering in that playoffs that they wouldn't do ANYTHING different over last summer and again at the trade deadline, so if Skinner isn't the guy, then we have just a 32-year old backup and the same spaz of a former NHLer behind that. It's really unforgivable, especially considering how critical these couple seasons are.



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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832824 is a reply to message #832787 ]
Wed, 01 May 2024 12:08 Go to previous message
inverno76  is currently offline inverno76
Messages: 2301
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...

2 Cups

Adam wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 15:38

inverno76 wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 14:25

Adam wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 12:56

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 12:12

JPro wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 11:07

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 12:20


Skinner in the last 2 games, in my opinion, helped back up my point that the sample size you were using wasn't big enough because he was outstanding in the last 2 games. So it's clear in my opinion, he has the ability to be a good goalie in the playoffs.


"My sample size of two is better than yours of fourteen"

Don't go planning the Conn Smythe debate already because he's doing well against a team the Oilers dominate regularly.

Again, not what I said what so ever. I said the 2 games he just played showed he has the capability to play well in the playoffs. Then said right after. The next thing I said he needs to do is to show he can do it again and again.

Feel free to actually READ what I said vs immediately making up complete lies.


I don’t think you’ve adequately staked out your position on Skinner. I mean, you can’t really refute the hard numbers that Mike has posted so do you have another argument? Is there perhaps a player or two in the last 18-20 years who had horrid playoff numbers in their first 14 games and then went on to win a Cup? Is there something in the way he played through last playoffs and this which has given you great confidence that he’s going to backstop us to a Cup?


I’d like to hear your full thoughts here.


I am sure there is a resource out there that breaks down the first 14 games of a goalies playoff career, but I do not know know where to find one. I am toeing the the middle line on this one. I really like Skinner when he is on his game, and I do see his flaws (lateral movement is still slow). He brings a calmness to the game that I have not seen since Dubnyk (prior to his inability to make a first save).

14 games is a small sample size and to be fair he was mismanaged as a rookie. He was swimming in the deep end, and his floatation device was a piece of cheese cloth we will call Jack Campbell. Game 1 this year was not as bad as the numbers suggested and he fell victim to 3 fluke goals. Game 2 was a lesson in suckitude. Games 3 and 4 were good too, I would even say really good. I would use the argument that Skinner is a very resilient goalie who is mentally strong. After last years playoffs and the horrendous start to this season there was very few reasons to believe that we would have Stu winning playoff games as a our starter in the playoffs.

Skinner finished the season at .905 save percentage after having a .865 up until the Capitals shut out game, 13 games. He then went on to play at a .916 pace which is good enough to win any series behind this offense. Skinner had some dog games along the way, but only lost back to back starts 3 times.

Long story short. I am very optimistic, and if the team in front of him commit to playing a controlled game they will have a great shot at winning a championship. I also understand people's skepticism. Most people need to see the proof, which is not unreasonable. This team does not need a star goalie. It needs a dependable goalie. I would love for Skinner to be prime Chris Osgood, with the same Cup rings.



I hope you're right. I do think that the management hasn't ever done Skinner any favours. He was overplayed down the stretch last year - a big error on the part of Woodcroft as we gambled trying to win the conference. The thing that worries me most about Skinner is what we saw in those playoffs though - when his confidence is shaken, he struggles to overcome it and can let in goals in bunches. I hope the last couple of games were good builders for his confidence. The Kings have a bit of a popgun offence that we're not likely to see in future series, but still if that's good for anything it's building personal belief.

On the management side, the Oilers created a situation last year where we had to rely on a rookie goalie going in to the playoffs with no safety net. They decided that despite his faltering in that playoffs that they wouldn't do ANYTHING different over last summer and again at the trade deadline, so if Skinner isn't the guy, then we have just a 32-year old backup and the same spaz of a former NHLer behind that. It's really unforgivable, especially considering how critical these couple seasons are.


I won’t lie. Part of my optimism lies in the fact that I’m scared crapless to be wrong. If Skinner falters hard we have no back up plan and there are not many options out there to upgrade the position, especially with the limited cap space available. The only funds that can easily be made available would be to ship out Draisaitl and I just bought a new away jersey, so that would suck.

In Skinner we trust. Only the best thoughts going out to manifest a Conn Smythe performer.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832786 is a reply to message #832783 ]
Tue, 30 April 2024 15:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JPro  is currently offline JPro
Messages: 803
Registered: January 2006
Location: Edmonton

No Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 12:12


Again, not what I said what so ever. I said the 2 games he just played showed he has the capability to play well in the playoffs. Then said right after. The next thing I said he needs to do is to show he can do it again and again.

Feel free to actually READ what I said vs immediately making up complete lies.

Nah, I didn't make anything up. It's what you said. And you keep saying it.

In the other thread, Mike comes in with stats related to 14 games and how he's concerned that Skinner doesn't have what's needed for the playoffs. You then waited for a whopping TWO wins and come in hot looking to be a smartass and start a fight so you can then play victim again, like you always do. Do you remember this?:
RDOilerfan wrote


How are some who were worried about Skinner after game 2 feeling now?

A poster in here said after his 14 career playoff games, he was almost the worst playoff goalie in the NHL since the early 2000's.

After the 2 games in LA where he gave up 1 goal, 2.48 and .919. So that's good right?


You knew what you were doing there. Then you conclude that Mike's sample size of 14 was insufficient to determine if Skinner was ready for playoffs, but you feel that 2 games suggests he is in fact ready. Again, no lies.

I don't think I missed anything. You try to eek out any tiny victory you can over other posters around here and it's exhausting to witness.

I usually skip your posts, but I like Mike's takes, so I entertained the discussion. Big mistake, I'll go back to skipping. Thanks for the reminder! icon_biggrin



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832790 is a reply to message #832786 ]
Tue, 30 April 2024 16:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Oscargasm  is currently offline Oscargasm
Messages: 5910
Registered: May 2009
Location: YEG

5 Cups

JPro wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 15:31

RDOilerfan wrote on Tue, 30 April 2024 12:12


Again, not what I said what so ever. I said the 2 games he just played showed he has the capability to play well in the playoffs. Then said right after. The next thing I said he needs to do is to show he can do it again and again.

Feel free to actually READ what I said vs immediately making up complete lies.

Nah, I didn't make anything up. It's what you said. And you keep saying it.

In the other thread, Mike comes in with stats related to 14 games and how he's concerned that Skinner doesn't have what's needed for the playoffs. You then waited for a whopping TWO wins and come in hot looking to be a smartass and start a fight so you can then play victim again, like you always do. Do you remember this?:
RDOilerfan wrote


How are some who were worried about Skinner after game 2 feeling now?

A poster in here said after his 14 career playoff games, he was almost the worst playoff goalie in the NHL since the early 2000's.

After the 2 games in LA where he gave up 1 goal, 2.48 and .919. So that's good right?


You knew what you were doing there. Then you conclude that Mike's sample size of 14 was insufficient to determine if Skinner was ready for playoffs, but you feel that 2 games suggests he is in fact ready. Again, no lies.

I don't think I missed anything. You try to eek out any tiny victory you can over other posters around here and it's exhausting to witness.

I usually skip your posts, but I like Mike's takes, so I entertained the discussion. Big mistake, I'll go back to skipping. Thanks for the reminder! icon_biggrin


OilFans is a better place with your posting, JPro



Survivor CHAMP S52 | S66
OG's #MUSTWIN Scale
Category 1 - Lightly Musty
Category 2 - Moderately Musty
Category 3 - Considerably Musty
Category 4 - Severely Musty
Category 5 - Incredibly Musty

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832744 is a reply to message #832742 ]
Mon, 29 April 2024 08:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 10435
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 08:49

Kr55 wrote on Sun, 28 April 2024 23:42

Hot damn

https://forums.hfboards.com/attachments/img_3339-jpeg.861638/

Ceci was one of the D that was in just pure panic mode from start to finish. Desharnais took over the key defensive responsibilities on the right and did well.

Not sure where you got that stat from but does that stat single out quality shot attempts vs just any shot attempt?

In my opinion, while in a perfect world, your defense is so good, the other team doesn't even cross the blueline. But in reality, the job of the Dman is to make it so the opposition doesn't get uncontested shots from great scoring spots.

So if the Kings are driving the zone and Nurse - Ceci defend it so the Kings can barely get over the blueline and all he can do (which the Kings players were doing) is fling the puck on goal from distance with no screen, that would count as a shot attempt against. Or I saw Nurse - Ceci pairing keeping the Kings player against the boards, not allowing much inside and the King player as they were going into the corner would fling the puck on Skinner which he would scoop up for an easy save. That's a shot attempt against.

So I am just asking if that stat indicates quality shots against vs just a shot because there is a big difference. If a dman gives the forward nothing but long range/ no scoring angle, no chance of scoring shot all game, he's done his job. But if you dislike Nurse - Ceci, a person will ignore that stat and just focus on shot against.

I also believe that the Leon line with Nurse and Ceci were typically up against the the Kopitar line who seemed to be the only liine that was actually trying to score most shifts. McD's line who I think Ekholm - Bouch play with mostly, had the Danault line who in my opinion seemed pretty focused on just stopping McD.


The matchups were actually the opposite of that. Bouch and Ek were mostly against kopitars line and gave up 1 high danger chance. Ceci and Nurse gave up 8 high danger chances against the Danault line.

I'm not sure what the spotlogiq data excludes to reduce LA's high danger chances from 14 (based just on shot location/timing data), to 4, but just going by shot locations, the nurse/Ceci pair was on for 11 out of LA's 14 high danger shot attempts.

To me this matches the eye test, because I felt Ceci was kind of alone as a D that was lost in our end most of the night. Most of our D looked like wizards shutting down plays, but Ceci really didnt. I know I am not the biggest Ceci fan :)

We survived though. I still would not expect our game plan last night to cut it against a team like the Avs or Vegas, or even the Canucks. but It was good enough against LA. The ice was total trash too, which worked to our advantage favoring defense.

[Updated on: Mon, 29 April 2024 08:58]


"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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832748 is a reply to message #832744 ]
Mon, 29 April 2024 10:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 08:55

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 08:49

Kr55 wrote on Sun, 28 April 2024 23:42

Hot damn

https://forums.hfboards.com/attachments/img_3339-jpeg.861638/

Ceci was one of the D that was in just pure panic mode from start to finish. Desharnais took over the key defensive responsibilities on the right and did well.

Not sure where you got that stat from but does that stat single out quality shot attempts vs just any shot attempt?

In my opinion, while in a perfect world, your defense is so good, the other team doesn't even cross the blueline. But in reality, the job of the Dman is to make it so the opposition doesn't get uncontested shots from great scoring spots.

So if the Kings are driving the zone and Nurse - Ceci defend it so the Kings can barely get over the blueline and all he can do (which the Kings players were doing) is fling the puck on goal from distance with no screen, that would count as a shot attempt against. Or I saw Nurse - Ceci pairing keeping the Kings player against the boards, not allowing much inside and the King player as they were going into the corner would fling the puck on Skinner which he would scoop up for an easy save. That's a shot attempt against.

So I am just asking if that stat indicates quality shots against vs just a shot because there is a big difference. If a dman gives the forward nothing but long range/ no scoring angle, no chance of scoring shot all game, he's done his job. But if you dislike Nurse - Ceci, a person will ignore that stat and just focus on shot against.

I also believe that the Leon line with Nurse and Ceci were typically up against the the Kopitar line who seemed to be the only liine that was actually trying to score most shifts. McD's line who I think Ekholm - Bouch play with mostly, had the Danault line who in my opinion seemed pretty focused on just stopping McD.


The matchups were actually the opposite of that. Bouch and Ek were mostly against kopitars line and gave up 1 high danger chance. Ceci and Nurse gave up 8 high danger chances against the Danault line.

I'm not sure what the spotlogiq data excludes to reduce LA's high danger chances from 14 (based just on shot location/timing data), to 4, but just going by shot locations, the nurse/Ceci pair was on for 11 out of LA's 14 high danger shot attempts.

To me this matches the eye test, because I felt Ceci was kind of alone as a D that was lost in our end most of the night. Most of our D looked like wizards shutting down plays, but Ceci really didnt. I know I am not the biggest Ceci fan :)

We survived though. I still would not expect our game plan last night to cut it against a team like the Avs or Vegas, or even the Canucks. but It was good enough against LA. The ice was total trash too, which worked to our advantage favoring defense.

Your comment at the end of your 3rd paragraph in my opinion will skew someone's perception of the game. You don't like Ceci so unless he plays perfect, you will find fault in his game. Which isn't meant as a shot. Most people have players they don't care for on their teams.

When I watched the game, the Kings didn't get a lot of quality looks even when Ceci was on the ice.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832749 is a reply to message #832748 ]
Mon, 29 April 2024 10:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 10435
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 10:14

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 08:55

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 08:49

Kr55 wrote on Sun, 28 April 2024 23:42

Hot damn

https://forums.hfboards.com/attachments/img_3339-jpeg.861638/

Ceci was one of the D that was in just pure panic mode from start to finish. Desharnais took over the key defensive responsibilities on the right and did well.

Not sure where you got that stat from but does that stat single out quality shot attempts vs just any shot attempt?

In my opinion, while in a perfect world, your defense is so good, the other team doesn't even cross the blueline. But in reality, the job of the Dman is to make it so the opposition doesn't get uncontested shots from great scoring spots.

So if the Kings are driving the zone and Nurse - Ceci defend it so the Kings can barely get over the blueline and all he can do (which the Kings players were doing) is fling the puck on goal from distance with no screen, that would count as a shot attempt against. Or I saw Nurse - Ceci pairing keeping the Kings player against the boards, not allowing much inside and the King player as they were going into the corner would fling the puck on Skinner which he would scoop up for an easy save. That's a shot attempt against.

So I am just asking if that stat indicates quality shots against vs just a shot because there is a big difference. If a dman gives the forward nothing but long range/ no scoring angle, no chance of scoring shot all game, he's done his job. But if you dislike Nurse - Ceci, a person will ignore that stat and just focus on shot against.

I also believe that the Leon line with Nurse and Ceci were typically up against the the Kopitar line who seemed to be the only liine that was actually trying to score most shifts. McD's line who I think Ekholm - Bouch play with mostly, had the Danault line who in my opinion seemed pretty focused on just stopping McD.


The matchups were actually the opposite of that. Bouch and Ek were mostly against kopitars line and gave up 1 high danger chance. Ceci and Nurse gave up 8 high danger chances against the Danault line.

I'm not sure what the spotlogiq data excludes to reduce LA's high danger chances from 14 (based just on shot location/timing data), to 4, but just going by shot locations, the nurse/Ceci pair was on for 11 out of LA's 14 high danger shot attempts.

To me this matches the eye test, because I felt Ceci was kind of alone as a D that was lost in our end most of the night. Most of our D looked like wizards shutting down plays, but Ceci really didnt. I know I am not the biggest Ceci fan :)

We survived though. I still would not expect our game plan last night to cut it against a team like the Avs or Vegas, or even the Canucks. but It was good enough against LA. The ice was total trash too, which worked to our advantage favoring defense.

Your comment at the end of your 3rd paragraph in my opinion will skew someone's perception of the game. You don't like Ceci so unless he plays perfect, you will find fault in his game. Which isn't meant as a shot. Most people have players they don't care for on their teams.

When I watched the game, the Kings didn't get a lot of quality looks even when Ceci was on the ice.


Your Ceci comment history suggests biased viewing as well :)

So, maybe stats can fill the gap.

The real test comes in the next rounds in any case. LA are just a warmup round for these playoffs.

[Updated on: Mon, 29 April 2024 10:24]


"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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832752 is a reply to message #832749 ]
Mon, 29 April 2024 10:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 10:18

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 10:14

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 08:55

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 08:49

Kr55 wrote on Sun, 28 April 2024 23:42

Hot damn

https://forums.hfboards.com/attachments/img_3339-jpeg.861638/

Ceci was one of the D that was in just pure panic mode from start to finish. Desharnais took over the key defensive responsibilities on the right and did well.

Not sure where you got that stat from but does that stat single out quality shot attempts vs just any shot attempt?

In my opinion, while in a perfect world, your defense is so good, the other team doesn't even cross the blueline. But in reality, the job of the Dman is to make it so the opposition doesn't get uncontested shots from great scoring spots.

So if the Kings are driving the zone and Nurse - Ceci defend it so the Kings can barely get over the blueline and all he can do (which the Kings players were doing) is fling the puck on goal from distance with no screen, that would count as a shot attempt against. Or I saw Nurse - Ceci pairing keeping the Kings player against the boards, not allowing much inside and the King player as they were going into the corner would fling the puck on Skinner which he would scoop up for an easy save. That's a shot attempt against.

So I am just asking if that stat indicates quality shots against vs just a shot because there is a big difference. If a dman gives the forward nothing but long range/ no scoring angle, no chance of scoring shot all game, he's done his job. But if you dislike Nurse - Ceci, a person will ignore that stat and just focus on shot against.

I also believe that the Leon line with Nurse and Ceci were typically up against the the Kopitar line who seemed to be the only liine that was actually trying to score most shifts. McD's line who I think Ekholm - Bouch play with mostly, had the Danault line who in my opinion seemed pretty focused on just stopping McD.


The matchups were actually the opposite of that. Bouch and Ek were mostly against kopitars line and gave up 1 high danger chance. Ceci and Nurse gave up 8 high danger chances against the Danault line.

I'm not sure what the spotlogiq data excludes to reduce LA's high danger chances from 14 (based just on shot location/timing data), to 4, but just going by shot locations, the nurse/Ceci pair was on for 11 out of LA's 14 high danger shot attempts.

To me this matches the eye test, because I felt Ceci was kind of alone as a D that was lost in our end most of the night. Most of our D looked like wizards shutting down plays, but Ceci really didnt. I know I am not the biggest Ceci fan :)

We survived though. I still would not expect our game plan last night to cut it against a team like the Avs or Vegas, or even the Canucks. but It was good enough against LA. The ice was total trash too, which worked to our advantage favoring defense.

Your comment at the end of your 3rd paragraph in my opinion will skew someone's perception of the game. You don't like Ceci so unless he plays perfect, you will find fault in his game. Which isn't meant as a shot. Most people have players they don't care for on their teams.

When I watched the game, the Kings didn't get a lot of quality looks even when Ceci was on the ice.


Your Ceci comment history suggests biased viewing as well :)

So, maybe stats can fill the gap.

The real test comes in the next rounds in any case. LA are just a warmup round for these playoffs.

I would disagree on your comment on being bias towards Ceci.

I have maintained all along and go ahead and look back. I don't see Ceci as I high end dman but I also don't think he's a 3rd pairing/ one of the worst dmen in the NHL like his haters think.

I think he is capable of being in the top 4 of many teams in the NHL as a #4. I have felt all along that if you can find an upgrade on Ceci, the Oilers should do it but it will be difficult to find a clear upgrade at his price point of 3.25 mill. He is capable of giving you for the most part, solid minutes with a good partner and for 3.25 mill, I think it is very unlikely to find an upgrade for that money on the open market or via trade.

If you feel that my opinion of him is me saying I am a Ceci lover, then we will never agree on much.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832754 is a reply to message #832752 ]
Mon, 29 April 2024 10:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

The Oilers need to prioritize resigning Desharnais. He gets better and better by the game. They had him out there protecting a 1-0 lead with 2 mins left last night.

I said in my comment to KR55. I don't love Ceci but I don't see a viable upgrade available via UFA or trade at Ceci's price point. Maybe the upgrade is Desharnais?

He's not going to score you a lot of points but for a big man, he moves really well. His reach is unreal, he gets his stick in the way of passes a ton, blocks shots, has an edge, can be physical and his puck moving continues to improve. He's needs more growth but he works his ass off, he's hungry and wants to improve, the amount he's improved from last year to this year is pretty impressive. They need to get him signed as this guy has the makings of a real gem.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832755 is a reply to message #832754 ]
Mon, 29 April 2024 11:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Game 5 would be a great game for McLeod too set up offensively some. He's been rock solid defensively, I like his line but I would love to see him using his speed to take the puck more into the zone and get some shots. 4 shots in 4 games is not much in my opinion, especially when he averages over 15 mins a night.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832756 is a reply to message #832754 ]
Mon, 29 April 2024 11:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 10435
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 10:55

The Oilers need to prioritize resigning Desharnais. He gets better and better by the game. They had him out there protecting a 1-0 lead with 2 mins left last night.

I said in my comment to KR55. I don't love Ceci but I don't see a viable upgrade available via UFA or trade at Ceci's price point. Maybe the upgrade is Desharnais?

He's not going to score you a lot of points but for a big man, he moves really well. His reach is unreal, he gets his stick in the way of passes a ton, blocks shots, has an edge, can be physical and his puck moving continues to improve. He's needs more growth but he works his ass off, he's hungry and wants to improve, the amount he's improved from last year to this year is pretty impressive. They need to get him signed as this guy has the makings of a real gem.


Vinny was spectacular defensively in that game. Might have been the best I've ever seen him play. Would be very convenient if he took another step and could be a solid defender playing with Nurse. Not sure if it quite worked out this year, but would be pretty useful of he has another level he can sustain next season.

Just remembered last night watching these guys, Chia actually drafted is an elite top pair offensive D, a #1 goalie and little bonus with Vinny.

Too bad Chia sucked so bad at trading, and maybe his impatience would have gave these players away if we let him GM longer. Do appreciate the lagging draft results though. Wonder if Holland will leave any gems behind. Not sure if anyone is tracking that similar. Holloway and Broberg need to take some huge steps.

[Updated on: Mon, 29 April 2024 11:08]


"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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832757 is a reply to message #832756 ]
Mon, 29 April 2024 11:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 11:05

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 10:55

The Oilers need to prioritize resigning Desharnais. He gets better and better by the game. They had him out there protecting a 1-0 lead with 2 mins left last night.

I said in my comment to KR55. I don't love Ceci but I don't see a viable upgrade available via UFA or trade at Ceci's price point. Maybe the upgrade is Desharnais?

He's not going to score you a lot of points but for a big man, he moves really well. His reach is unreal, he gets his stick in the way of passes a ton, blocks shots, has an edge, can be physical and his puck moving continues to improve. He's needs more growth but he works his ass off, he's hungry and wants to improve, the amount he's improved from last year to this year is pretty impressive. They need to get him signed as this guy has the makings of a real gem.


Vinny was spectacular defensively in that game. Might have been the best I've ever seen him play. Would be very convenient if he took another step and could be a solid defender playing with Nurse. Not sure if it quite worked out this year, but would be pretty useful of he has another level he can sustain next season.

Just remembered last night watching these guys, Chia actually drafted is an elite top pair offensive D, a #1 goalie and little bonus with Vinny.

Too bad Chia sucked so bad at trading, and maybe his impatience would have gave these players away if we let him GM longer. Do appreciate the lagging draft results though. Wonder if Holland will leave any gems behind. Not sure if anyone is tracking that similar. Holloway and Broberg need to take some huge steps.

I feel like if you can get an everyday NHL Dman in the 7th round, that's found money. If you can get a top 4 guy, that's a hell of a get. Not sure yet if he can become a top 4 guy but I would not bet against him just because of how hungry he is and how hard he seems to work on his game. Fingers crossed!



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832767 is a reply to message #832757 ]
Mon, 29 April 2024 14:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Oscargasm  is currently offline Oscargasm
Messages: 5910
Registered: May 2009
Location: YEG

5 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 11:15

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 11:05

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 10:55

The Oilers need to prioritize resigning Desharnais. He gets better and better by the game. They had him out there protecting a 1-0 lead with 2 mins left last night.

I said in my comment to KR55. I don't love Ceci but I don't see a viable upgrade available via UFA or trade at Ceci's price point. Maybe the upgrade is Desharnais?

He's not going to score you a lot of points but for a big man, he moves really well. His reach is unreal, he gets his stick in the way of passes a ton, blocks shots, has an edge, can be physical and his puck moving continues to improve. He's needs more growth but he works his ass off, he's hungry and wants to improve, the amount he's improved from last year to this year is pretty impressive. They need to get him signed as this guy has the makings of a real gem.


Vinny was spectacular defensively in that game. Might have been the best I've ever seen him play. Would be very convenient if he took another step and could be a solid defender playing with Nurse. Not sure if it quite worked out this year, but would be pretty useful of he has another level he can sustain next season.

Just remembered last night watching these guys, Chia actually drafted is an elite top pair offensive D, a #1 goalie and little bonus with Vinny.

Too bad Chia sucked so bad at trading, and maybe his impatience would have gave these players away if we let him GM longer. Do appreciate the lagging draft results though. Wonder if Holland will leave any gems behind. Not sure if anyone is tracking that similar. Holloway and Broberg need to take some huge steps.

I feel like if you can get an everyday NHL Dman in the 7th round, that's found money. If you can get a top 4 guy, that's a hell of a get. Not sure yet if he can become a top 4 guy but I would not bet against him just because of how hungry he is and how hard he seems to work on his game. Fingers crossed!



Vinny gets exposed when the opponent plays with speed. Let's pump the breaks on a MUST resign when a guy has 2 good games. Can't end up with a Nurse situation for his contract, PURELY OVERPAY I'M TALKING - NOT SAYING THEY WILL PAY HIM 9.25 PER



Survivor CHAMP S52 | S66
OG's #MUSTWIN Scale
Category 1 - Lightly Musty
Category 2 - Moderately Musty
Category 3 - Considerably Musty
Category 4 - Severely Musty
Category 5 - Incredibly Musty

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832769 is a reply to message #832767 ]
Mon, 29 April 2024 14:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RDOilerfan  is currently offline RDOilerfan
Messages: 3908
Registered: January 2016

3 Cups

Oscargasm wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 14:16

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 11:15

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 11:05

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 10:55

The Oilers need to prioritize resigning Desharnais. He gets better and better by the game. They had him out there protecting a 1-0 lead with 2 mins left last night.

I said in my comment to KR55. I don't love Ceci but I don't see a viable upgrade available via UFA or trade at Ceci's price point. Maybe the upgrade is Desharnais?

He's not going to score you a lot of points but for a big man, he moves really well. His reach is unreal, he gets his stick in the way of passes a ton, blocks shots, has an edge, can be physical and his puck moving continues to improve. He's needs more growth but he works his ass off, he's hungry and wants to improve, the amount he's improved from last year to this year is pretty impressive. They need to get him signed as this guy has the makings of a real gem.


Vinny was spectacular defensively in that game. Might have been the best I've ever seen him play. Would be very convenient if he took another step and could be a solid defender playing with Nurse. Not sure if it quite worked out this year, but would be pretty useful of he has another level he can sustain next season.

Just remembered last night watching these guys, Chia actually drafted is an elite top pair offensive D, a #1 goalie and little bonus with Vinny.

Too bad Chia sucked so bad at trading, and maybe his impatience would have gave these players away if we let him GM longer. Do appreciate the lagging draft results though. Wonder if Holland will leave any gems behind. Not sure if anyone is tracking that similar. Holloway and Broberg need to take some huge steps.

I feel like if you can get an everyday NHL Dman in the 7th round, that's found money. If you can get a top 4 guy, that's a hell of a get. Not sure yet if he can become a top 4 guy but I would not bet against him just because of how hungry he is and how hard he seems to work on his game. Fingers crossed!



Vinny gets exposed when the opponent plays with speed. Let's pump the breaks on a MUST resign when a guy has 2 good games. Can't end up with a Nurse situation for his contract, PURELY OVERPAY I'M TALKING - NOT SAYING THEY WILL PAY HIM 9.25 PER

Depends on what you watch and how you see a player. If your expectation is no Dman ever gets beat, then sure, he will get beat from time to time by players with great speed. Players with great speed expose a lot of NHL dmen. McD, Mackinnon, blow by lots of norris winners from time to time. EKholm can be beat from time to time by really fast players. But generally you don't see Vinnie get turn styled shift after shift. His positioning is pretty sounds, his reach is massive and helps him against any really fast players more times than not and his skating is good enough that he keeps up with the majority of NHL forwards.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832770 is a reply to message #832769 ]
Mon, 29 April 2024 14:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Oscargasm  is currently offline Oscargasm
Messages: 5910
Registered: May 2009
Location: YEG

5 Cups

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 14:30

Oscargasm wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 14:16

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 11:15

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 11:05

RDOilerfan wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 10:55

The Oilers need to prioritize resigning Desharnais. He gets better and better by the game. They had him out there protecting a 1-0 lead with 2 mins left last night.

I said in my comment to KR55. I don't love Ceci but I don't see a viable upgrade available via UFA or trade at Ceci's price point. Maybe the upgrade is Desharnais?

He's not going to score you a lot of points but for a big man, he moves really well. His reach is unreal, he gets his stick in the way of passes a ton, blocks shots, has an edge, can be physical and his puck moving continues to improve. He's needs more growth but he works his ass off, he's hungry and wants to improve, the amount he's improved from last year to this year is pretty impressive. They need to get him signed as this guy has the makings of a real gem.


Vinny was spectacular defensively in that game. Might have been the best I've ever seen him play. Would be very convenient if he took another step and could be a solid defender playing with Nurse. Not sure if it quite worked out this year, but would be pretty useful of he has another level he can sustain next season.

Just remembered last night watching these guys, Chia actually drafted is an elite top pair offensive D, a #1 goalie and little bonus with Vinny.

Too bad Chia sucked so bad at trading, and maybe his impatience would have gave these players away if we let him GM longer. Do appreciate the lagging draft results though. Wonder if Holland will leave any gems behind. Not sure if anyone is tracking that similar. Holloway and Broberg need to take some huge steps.

I feel like if you can get an everyday NHL Dman in the 7th round, that's found money. If you can get a top 4 guy, that's a hell of a get. Not sure yet if he can become a top 4 guy but I would not bet against him just because of how hungry he is and how hard he seems to work on his game. Fingers crossed!



Vinny gets exposed when the opponent plays with speed. Let's pump the breaks on a MUST resign when a guy has 2 good games. Can't end up with a Nurse situation for his contract, PURELY OVERPAY I'M TALKING - NOT SAYING THEY WILL PAY HIM 9.25 PER

Depends on what you watch and how you see a player. If your expectation is no Dman ever gets beat, then sure, he will get beat from time to time by players with great speed. Players with great speed expose a lot of NHL dmen. McD, Mackinnon, blow by lots of norris winners from time to time. EKholm can be beat from time to time by really fast players. But generally you don't see Vinnie get turn styled shift after shift. His positioning is pretty sounds, his reach is massive and helps him against any really fast players more times than not and his skating is good enough that he keeps up with the majority of NHL forwards.



Recency bias against a lackluster Kings system with one offensive dynamo tends to sway your mind.

Hope he proves me wrong, but again, you can't overpay a bottom pairing dman when you have 29, 2 and 97 coming due for contracts here in the very near future.



Survivor CHAMP S52 | S66
OG's #MUSTWIN Scale
Category 1 - Lightly Musty
Category 2 - Moderately Musty
Category 3 - Considerably Musty
Category 4 - Severely Musty
Category 5 - Incredibly Musty

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832771 is a reply to message #832770 ]
Mon, 29 April 2024 14:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dragon_Matt  is currently offline Dragon_Matt
Messages: 739
Registered: January 2009
Location: edmonton

No Cups

can you imagine if they gave him a 9.25 offer though??



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832775 is a reply to message #832771 ]
Mon, 29 April 2024 17:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kr55  is currently offline Kr55
Messages: 10435
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton

6 Cups

Dragon_Matt wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 14:52

can you imagine if they gave him a 9.25 offer though??



Pretty sure you can sign Vinny for a modest deal to prove himself another couple years.

100% defensive D that played 90% on third pair isn't gonna be commanding that much. Let him keep developing.



"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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832777 is a reply to message #832775 ]
Tue, 30 April 2024 00:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 7042
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Kr55 wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 17:39

Dragon_Matt wrote on Mon, 29 April 2024 14:52

can you imagine if they gave him a 9.25 offer though??



Pretty sure you can sign Vinny for a modest deal to prove himself another couple years.

100% defensive D that played 90% on third pair isn't gonna be commanding that much. Let him keep developing.


That's not the Oilers way. We bridge offensive guys so that they can demand an absolute fortune. We sign defensive d-men to four year deals.



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

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4) [message #832774 is a reply to message #832712 ]
Mon, 29 April 2024 17:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kungpaobenji27  is currently offline kungpaobenji27
Messages: 340
Registered: August 2003
Location: Irving, Texas

No Cups

Late to chime in but here goes.

Scary shots from the point by Spence/Gavrikov/Anderson with traffic in front all game. It's not like Skinner "played lights out" but has moreso managed games 3 & 4 very very effectively in net. That....is what we need Stu to do.

Oilers forwards spent most of match 4 "chasing the puck" as the Kings evidently outworked them dominating in the dirty areas, corners, and boards for 60 minutes.

This series is anything but over as "Big Save Dave" made key stops on limited action...and Rishaug thinks the Kings will come into Game 5 in Edmonton living and dying by the same strategy as seen in Game 4 hoping it'll produce a different outcome for them.

Nonetheless, let's give LA the machine gun fire treatment in game 5 & end this thing.

[Updated on: Mon, 29 April 2024 23:03]


Send a private message to this user  

Pages (2): [ «  <  1  2]  
Previous Topic:Pregame: Los Angeles @ Edmonton (Game #5)
Next Topic:GDT: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #4)
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