Confirmed with Link: Sutton for Foster

[ibis284]

Originally Posted by Replacement

A lot of distorted notions in these threads and that seems to settle naturally into a Foster vs Barker differentiation because those 2 are PP designates here. Also an odd notion that Barker will automatically be better than Foster on the PP.


Will heres some details:

Foster led the club in PP pts last year with 14 on an off year. He had close to the highest pts/60mins on the PP. Deadheat with Whitney. 24 GFON were scored while Foster was out on PP. 9 more than any other D on the club. This is also significant because the Oilers only scored 42PP goals all year. So in otherwords only 18PP goals all year were scored with Foster not on the ice.

Causal relationship? No, no proof of that. There rarely is. But the numbers are telling a little different story than Foster sucked allday everyday and that he killed our PP. The numbers are suggesting anything but that.

Conversely Barker had 2PP pts all year, had half the rate of PP production that Foster did, and was a laughable -1 on the PP for the year.
In otherwords were substituting in a guy that had 2PP pts(GFON 2) for one that had 14PP pts(GFON24) and the new guy is automatically going to be better?

Remember as well that this is Barkers alleged bread and butter, he was drafted that high largely on the basis of PP points. Which seems to have fizzled into less than nothing.

So the deduction that we've automatically improved our PP by deleting Foster and adding Barker is strange at best and supported by nothing.

If you are going to toss stats around you should be clear on how they are calculated. all that means was he was on for 1 shorthanded goal.

[Wheatking]

Originally Posted by PKSpecialist

Not sure if anyone else remembers this, but in the game that we had a line brawl with the Thrashers years ago, there were some comments made by Ray Ferraro, an ex-teammate of Andy Sutton's while with the Thrashers.

This is all off of my head, but if anyone knows where there may be some video, feel free to correct me, but here goes:

Laraque challenged Sutton to a scrap after a questionable hit, and Sutton wouldn't drop his mitts. A little while later during the brawl, Sutton grabbed Moreau(I think) and pummelled him pretty good. Ferraro's comments were: "there is Andy Sutton showing his colors". alluding to the fact that he was a gutless player who wouldn't fight Laraque but would jump Moreau.

I'm not sure how well Ferraro knew Sutton, but I got the feeling that there was some bad blood between them. My point in all of this is that maybe Sutton isn't a good mentor, and just because a guy has been in the league for a while doesn't necessarily make them a good mentor-type for the young players. I see way too many comments on these message boards alluding to players' charachter and dressing room prescence that we actually have next to no evidence of.

In conclusion, Andy Sutton is a big bodied defenceman who packs a punch, and has a little bit of nasty in his game, but he is slow, and better suited for a low minute bottom pairing role.

Edit: Found a link on You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCQld1IbYMI

I think Ferraro comes across as a bit of a homer in that video. Sutton is a big guy that is willing to back up a big hit but he's not a very good fighter. He shouldn't be criticized for not wanting to square off against the Heavyweight Champ of the NHL. He couldn't even beat Rick Rypien...who I know is a good fighter but he's also about 70 pounds lighter.

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by ibis284

If you are going to toss stats around you should be clear on how they are calculated. all that means was he was on for 1 shorthanded goal.

He was on for 3 Shorthanded GA. 2PP GF. He was -1 on the PP. What are you talking about?

[ibis284]

Originally Posted by Replacement

He was on for 3 Shorthanded GA. 2PP GF. He was -1 on the PP. What are you talking about?

then he was -3 on the pp
+/- does not count on the pp unless its a shorty

[Replacement]

Originally Posted by ibis284

then he was -3 on the pp
+/- does not count on the pp unless its a shorty

It should read as obvious that +/- discussed within the realm of PP or PK ignores the conventional rules of +/-.

I assume that goes without saying.

Almost anybody would know what I meant saying he was -1 on the PP. Figuratively.

Although I follow your point.

[Bryanbryoil]

Originally Posted by Replacement

A lot of distorted notions in these threads and that seems to settle naturally into a Foster vs Barker differentiation because those 2 are PP designates here. Also an odd notion that Barker will automatically be better than Foster on the PP.


Well heres some details:

Foster led the club in PP pts last year with 14 on an off year. He had close to the highest pts/60mins on the PP. Deadheat with Whitney. 24 GFON were scored while Foster was out on PP. 9 more than any other D on the club. This is also significant because the Oilers only scored 42PP goals all year. So in otherwords only 18PP goals all year were scored with Foster not on the ice.

Causal relationship? No, no proof of that. There rarely is. But the numbers are telling a little different story than Foster sucked allday everyday and that he killed our PP. The numbers are suggesting anything but that.

Conversely Barker had 2PP pts all year, had half the rate of PP production that Foster did, and was a laughable -1 on the PP for the year.

In otherwords were substituting in a guy that had 2PP pts(GFON 2) for one that had 14PP pts(GFON24) and the new guy is automatically going to be better?

Remember as well that this is Barkers alleged bread and butter, he was drafted that high largely on the basis of PP points. Which seems to have fizzled into less than nothing.

So the deduction that we've automatically improved our PP by deleting Foster and adding Barker is strange at best and supported by nothing.

Foster played a team high of 284:27 on the PP, the PP was garbage I guess he's not to blame at all. You're right everyone else was holding him back, problem is that your lil' buddy Gagner was useless on the PP too, that 2/3 of our top PP unit and two guys that you are defending to the death. Big surprise that he was one of the leaders in PP scoring? Of course not, why? Because like Souray before him we fell in love with the point shot on the PP, of course unlike Souray, Foster wasn't nearly as good onetiming shots and opening shooting lanes. Maybe by removing Foster and hopefully getting Gagner off the top PP unit we might have some kind of a PP next year.

[Jimmi Jenkins]

If you think it's Tom Renney's fault that Kurtis Foster was so horrible last season, then you didn't watch close enough and you go look at some icetime stats