HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Comrie thoughts, whaddya think

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-19-2003, 01:01 PM
  #1
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Comrie thoughts, whaddya think

With regards to dealing Comrie, I would avoid it by any means possible, BUT, if for some strange reason that no one has yet to make apparent to me, there's no way he's coming back:

How can you deal him for a young defenceman, without SEVERELY hampering this hockey team's ability to score goals?

You deal Comrie for a d-man, and here's what you got left as top-six talent:

Smyth, Hemsky, York, Dvorak (unreliable so far) , and (maybe) Isbister.

That's it. 3 top-six guys and 2 question marks.

Does anyone really believe that A guy like Shawn Horcoff is gonna pick up that kind of offensive slack?? I'd sure like you to be an opposition GM I was trading with if that were the case.

Does anyone really believe there is someone who will replace Comrie, even in 2-3 years?? Do we have someone who can put up 70-90 points by then, as would be expected as the team progressed with Comrie there? I sure don't see anyone fitting that description.

If you cannot get a young, offensively gifted forward, who is likely to stay with this hockey team for a long time, in a deal, or pair of deals, involving any one of our elite forwards for that matter. You cannot make the deal(s).

The future of this hockey team is at risk with how this is handled. We're looking at progressing or regressing here. Flat-out. I don't think we have the time to regress right now, and we can't have our young talent learning how to lose, instead of learning how to win.

Just a thought...

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 01:22 PM
  #2
Hemsky4PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Billeting Ales
Posts: 6,585
vCash: 500
I agree that the offensive talent of our forwards is questionable. We have: Smyth, York, Hemsky, Isbister, Dvorak and ? (Horcoff, Rita, Pisani, Chimera....Comrie). I think the offense will be replace (if need be) by Hemsky, who should get 20+ more points than last year, horcs should get more and Isbister and Devo should also improve on their totals. I think it was proven last year when the oilers had injury troubles that there is some scoring depth at forward. My concern is that if Brewer, Smith or Staios gets injured there is a lack of guys that can play reliable 15-20 minutes on the blueline. We still need a quality no.4 defenseman, whether one is aquired via a Comrie trade (or Luoma or Bergeron exceed the organization's expectations), time will tell.

Comrie is not absolutely necessary for this team to succeed. He's not as important as Smith, Brewer, York, Smyth, Hemsky or Salo, to the teams hopes for the present and future.

Hemsky4PM is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 01:27 PM
  #3
Easilee 27
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Red Deer
Country: Canada
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
I think that Comrie could potentially sit all year. If this happens, he will never play here again. I would like to see him here, as would the majority of fans, developing with this team full of promise. But we have to prepare for the possibility that it may not happen. With the CBA so close, he chose the wrong time to play hardball with Lowe. Had this happened at the same time as Poti, it wouldn't be all that big an issue, he'd be here in October. I'm torn, do you let him sit, risk having to deal him anyway, and deal with the hole we're left with this season, or deal him now hopefully for someone who can play right now, and know for sure where your roster sits next season whenever that is?

Easilee 27 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 01:31 PM
  #4
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
Well, the absence of alternatives clears the mind. If Mike Comrie doesn't want to play for the Oilers, no matter the reason, then comparing the next guy up in the queue to Comrie is a moot point. The Oilers don't have Bobby Orr, either, but they DO have 45 people who'd give their left nut for 4 and a half minutes of powerplay time this winter.

Lowetide is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 01:52 PM
  #5
LawnDemon
Registered User
 
LawnDemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Danger Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowetide
Well, the absence of alternatives clears the mind. If Mike Comrie doesn't want to play for the Oilers, no matter the reason, then comparing the next guy up in the queue to Comrie is a moot point. The Oilers don't have Bobby Orr, either, but they DO have 45 people who'd give their left nut for 4 and a half minutes of powerplay time this winter.
hell yeah!

we need to quit whining about comrie leaving and start focussing on the positives for this upcoming season. comrie isn't even fit to tie the skates of some former oilers lost for economic reasons (gretzky, coffee).

it is also critical to remember that the team is only worse while he sits and will be better when he signs or is traded for a commodity that improves the team.

LawnDemon is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 02:30 PM
  #6
IceDragoon
Registered User
 
IceDragoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South of Sanity
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowetide
Well, the absence of alternatives clears the mind. If Mike Comrie doesn't want to play for the Oilers, no matter the reason, then comparing the next guy up in the queue to Comrie is a moot point. The Oilers don't have Bobby Orr, either, but they DO have 45 people who'd give their left nut for 4 and a half minutes of powerplay time this winter.
Especially under Simmer's tutelage. If he's playing his @$$ off in Oilers silks, I'll cheer for him. If not, I could care less where he goes and what he does.

IceDragoon is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 03:04 PM
  #7
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,861
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Our offense was better then it needed to be last year. Now look at it this way. Our offense was NINTH in the league. So say in the west that makes us the fifth best offensive team. I think the Oilers NEED to concentrate on defense again... like they did two years ago. Our team has better skill this year then they did then, but we REALLY need to return to a tight defensive team. If we could get back into the bottom third of the league in GA and could stay in the top third we would be VERY fine off. It has been ALONG time since we've had the tools to make a good (or hell existent) second line. Dvo and Issy provide that. But we can't continue to press for offense. I'd rather our club be 15th in GF and 10th in GA this year then 9th in GF and and 21 in GF. Well anyways, your guys get my drift. Less offense, more defense is what I want to see from the team. And to do that I think moving Comrie for a Dman would go a LONG LONG way in doing that....

thome_26 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 03:25 PM
  #8
Behind Enemy Lines
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawnDemon
hell yeah!

we need to quit whining about comrie leaving and start focussing on the positives for this upcoming season. comrie isn't even fit to tie the skates of some former oilers lost for economic reasons (gretzky, coffee).

Coffee? Didn't he play with Teakenen?

Behind Enemy Lines is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 03:37 PM
  #9
Chayos
Registered User
 
Chayos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Whitehorse, Yukon
Posts: 2,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowetide
Well, the absence of alternatives clears the mind. If Mike Comrie doesn't want to play for the Oilers, no matter the reason, then comparing the next guy up in the queue to Comrie is a moot point. The Oilers don't have Bobby Orr, either, but they DO have 45 people who'd give their left nut for 4 and a half minutes of powerplay time this winter.

I think that the player that teh oil would aquire for Comrie would be better in the line up than an unhappy Comrie would, so you gotta move him if he doesn't want to play for the oil.

Now as to what we could get for him. I think York could step into a 1/2nd line center role and not miss a beat and one of Reasoner/Horcoff should produce with the extra ice time or you can leave Smyth at Center. We are set optionwise with a variety of players who play different positions(York, Isbister, Rita, Chimera)so we will be ok upfront.

The thing we need most is a Top 4 D-man for the future as we will be losing Staois and smith sooner than we think.

Chayos is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 03:45 PM
  #10
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
Our offense was better then it needed to be last year. Now look at it this way. Our offense was NINTH in the league. So say in the west that makes us the fifth best offensive team. I think the Oilers NEED to concentrate on defense again... like they did two years ago. Our team has better skill this year then they did then, but we REALLY need to return to a tight defensive team. If we could get back into the bottom third of the league in GA and could stay in the top third we would be VERY fine off. It has been ALONG time since we've had the tools to make a good (or hell existent) second line. Dvo and Issy provide that. But we can't continue to press for offense. I'd rather our club be 15th in GF and 10th in GA this year then 9th in GF and and 21 in GF. Well anyways, your guys get my drift. Less offense, more defense is what I want to see from the team. And to do that I think moving Comrie for a Dman would go a LONG LONG way in doing that....
I really don't think I could disagree with something any more than this. You can't have an offence that was "better than it needed to be", that's completely impossible. So what if we were ninth, that should give us an area to MOVE UP from, not down. The Oilers don't win playing defensive hockey because of the roster setup and that's not gonna change with one deal. Nor should it change. In fact, when the Oilers did play defensive hockey last year, was when they were trying to sit on leads, and we all know how well that went.............If we see less offence and more defence, I really don't think we're winning more games, and will ESPECIALLY not go anywhere in the playoffs, which is the other place we try to play defensively every year, and again, we all know how that goes.

Oilers-built on speed-speed means you must forecheck-good forechecking-Oilers win because good offence (forechecking resulting in goals) puts much less pressure on the defence.

Almost every lead we lost last year was because the fore-check was turned off, and they tried to play defensive hockey.

Just my opinion, but I really noticed this as obscenely glaring last year.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 05:42 PM
  #11
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
The Oilers don't win playing defensive hockey because of the roster setup and that's not gonna change with one deal. Nor should it change. In fact, when the Oilers did play defensive hockey last year, was when they were trying to sit on leads, and we all know how well that went.............If we see less offence and more defence, I really don't think we're winning more games, and will ESPECIALLY not go anywhere in the playoffs, which is the other place we try to play defensively every year, and again, we all know how that goes.
Well, I don't know if that is exactly true.

Two years ago, the Oilers were second in the league as a DEFENSIVE club second only to Colorado that year. The Oilers have shown success at playing a suffocating defensive style. There is nowhere that says that in a defensive-minded system, you can't forecheck. The Oilers do have a lot of team speed... but a lot of that can be used on the counterattack as well.

I know that good old firewagon hockey is what the fans would like to see.... but the Oilers as a team don't have the guns that some of the bigger teams do. IMO, I don't think they can play that kind of system against those teams. The only way to win is to play a good defensive system... Not as fun but a lot more effective.

momentai is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 06:06 PM
  #12
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
And they didn't do any better that year.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 06:17 PM
  #13
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,861
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
I really don't think I could disagree with something any more than this. You can't have an offence that was "better than it needed to be", that's completely impossible. So what if we were ninth, that should give us an area to MOVE UP from, not down. The Oilers don't win playing defensive hockey because of the roster setup and that's not gonna change with one deal. Nor should it change. In fact, when the Oilers did play defensive hockey last year, was when they were trying to sit on leads, and we all know how well that went.............If we see less offence and more defence, I really don't think we're winning more games, and will ESPECIALLY not go anywhere in the playoffs, which is the other place we try to play defensively every year, and again, we all know how that goes.

Oilers-built on speed-speed means you must forecheck-good forechecking-Oilers win because good offence (forechecking resulting in goals) puts much less pressure on the defence.

Almost every lead we lost last year was because the fore-check was turned off, and they tried to play defensive hockey.

Just my opinion, but I really noticed this as obscenely glaring last year.
You're right, the team does win when it is skating and forchecking. BUT guess what buddy, that was the major thing of the Oilers defense of two years ago. AGREESIVE DEFENSE is what they played. Last year they played try and out score the other team. Two years ago they played, we better shut'm down cause we're not scoring much. I'm saying they need to find a happy medium! Teams that don't play good defense don't win. It's that simple. It doesn't have to be sit in the neutral zone, put me to sleep, defense, BUT it has to be defense!

thome_26 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 06:50 PM
  #14
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
So how bout we just say they improve in both areas That'd make sense right?

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 06:59 PM
  #15
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,861
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
So how bout we just say they improve in both areas That'd make sense right?
I'd LOVE that even more!!!!

thome_26 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 07:50 PM
  #16
IceDragoon
Registered User
 
IceDragoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South of Sanity
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
You're right, the team does win when it is skating and forchecking. BUT guess what buddy, that was the major thing of the Oilers defense of two years ago. AGREESIVE DEFENSE is what they played. Last year they played try and out score the other team. Two years ago they played, we better shut'm down cause we're not scoring much. I'm saying they need to find a happy medium! Teams that don't play good defense don't win. It's that simple. It doesn't have to be sit in the neutral zone, put me to sleep, defense, BUT it has to be defense!
Put quite simply, we played 3rd line hockey in '01/'02. Good puck possession, but not enough finish around the net. (sounds like a coach or 2 we know)

---------

Simmer's adding some excitement and a new dimension to the coaching staff. The boys look like they're having fun. IF they buy in to what the coaches are selling, we'll see more focus and balanced play.

Hockey is a team sport. Last years playoffs should tell you that team focus can take you deep into the playoffs. Add the talent that's listed above (btw-reasoner belongs in that list) and we're dangerous. And then, it won't matter where Comrie is.

IceDragoon is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 08:48 PM
  #17
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
And they didn't do any better that year.
True... I'm just saying it's much easier for the Oilers to play a defensive style than hoping to outgun the other team in goals... Normally, you have to pay for that kind of offensive output in the league. For defense, the price isn't that high. For a team like the Oilers, where every penny counts, it'd make sense to make sure their defensive play is up to snuff first.

momentai is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 09:07 PM
  #18
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=momentai] For defense, the price isn't that high.QUOTE]

Jason Smith and Eric Brewer might have somethin to say about that...


I dunno, I guess it comes down to the fundamental question of what each person thinks wins. I personally believe the key is 3+ goals/game and that will get you wins in the modern NHL with a decent team, some believe it's other things. I just look at what the good teams do, and want the Oilers to copy that as close as they can, knowing they will need to be fortunate to enjoy the same success.

But if I ever see the Minnesota Wild out there, then I'm not gonna watch anymore. A team like that won't win cups anyway.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
09-19-2003, 10:29 PM
  #19
Hemsky01
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 255
vCash: 500
Comrie

Well I've read about a 1000 opinions (from here to oilfans) on Mikey and here is my two cents worth. Nobody that anyone here has mentioned (outside of maybe Simon Gagne) would make up for the whole in the lineup that Comrie leaves. And lets not forget, he scored 50 plus points in a year where he missed a pile of game and in a year where we would all agree he didn't nearly play his best hockey. He lead the Oilers with 6 game winning goals in a year where everyone seems to think he sucked. If that is what they call the dread sophmore jinx, I want to see what this guy can do. A friend of mine played with Comrie in Kootney and said he was one of the most motivated guys he had ever seen. I'm sorry. I'm not say KLowe is doing the wrong thing by not giving him the money he's asking for but there is no way Comrie goes anywhere without a legit young star coming back. In my books, Comrie will be a 80 - 90pt. player some day.(The Briere comparisons are laughable)

Hemsky01 is offline  
Old
09-20-2003, 12:41 AM
  #20
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Jason Smith and Eric Brewer might have somethin to say about that...
Not what I'm talking about though. I'm not strictly discussing defenders on the blueline. I'm talking about the concept of team defense. It's much much easier to get a bunch of lower tier, cheap players that can play good defense.

If we're talking offensive guys like Gonchar, Zubov, Guerin, Sakic, etc.. We just can't afford to ice that kind of lineup.

To even up that big gap in talent/salary, the Oilers have to be more defensive-minded to be successful... because it's not likely the Oilers are going to come up winners in a shootout with some of the Western powerhouses.

momentai is offline  
Old
09-20-2003, 10:18 AM
  #21
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
It's strange though, if you watch the Oilers play and beat good teams, it's not by playing "defensive hockey", it's by forechecking the crap out of them so as to wear down their defence and take away their ability to use their firepower. Joe Sakic isn't worth much on the scoreboard in his own end. This of course also includes hustling back when you need to, so it is a balanced gameplan, but there were so many times last year, when that one more goal woulda just made the other team hang their heads and quit, rather than keep going and come from behind by 2 because we're standing around at their blue-line waiting. I guess what it comes down to is, we all know the system is faulty, and want it to be fixed, we just have different concepts of what will do that.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:22 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.