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

GDT: Oilers vs Blues

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-21-2003, 10:23 PM
  #126
Fists of Fuhry
Registered User
 
Fists of Fuhry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilers89
This site is just as bad as oilfans.com. The team gets criticized when they play bad but when they win and play well, no one makes comments. Strange indeed.

We are being cautious to curb our enthusiasm as not to mutate into mutant bandwaggon mongoloid Nuck fans

Fists of Fuhry is offline  
Old
10-21-2003, 10:29 PM
  #127
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
We didn't lose this game because of defence, we lost this game because we turned off the pressure and forecheck, laid back, took dumb penalties, made dumb plays, played the wrong players at the wrong times, and did too little too late. For more of this, go check my game report

hahaha
You are right our defence was great and that is why we let in six goals ::

I read your game report but anyone that says defence isn't a problem when a team lets in six goals shouldn't be laughing at my response, unless you were laughing at your own comment about the defence.

Again I ask you how Comrie would have helped tonight??

Four goals is usually enough to win most hockey games unless the defence and goaltending are bad as they were tonight.

No doubt they stopped skating and thought the game was won after they scored the three goals, but defence was a Major problem tonight!

Comrie may have scored or assisted on a goal but he may have also been responsible for a couple the other way. Defense wasn't a strong suit last year for #89.

Don't get me wrong I would love for Comrie to sign but I don't see how having Comrie tonight would have magically produced a win.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
10-21-2003, 10:49 PM
  #128
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 spaz44
You are right our defence was great and that is why we let in six goals ::

I read your game report but anyone that says defence isn't a problem when a team lets in six goals shouldn't be laughing at my response, unless you were laughing at your own comment about the defence.

Again I ask you how Comrie would have helped tonight??

Four goals is usually enough to win most hockey games unless the defence and goaltending are bad as they were tonight.

No doubt they stopped skating and thought the game was won after they scored the three goals, but defence was a Major problem tonight!

Comrie may have scored or assisted on a goal but he may have also been responsible for a couple the other way. Defense wasn't a strong suit last year for #89.

Don't get me wrong I would love for Comrie to sign but I don't see how having Comrie tonight would have magically produced a win.
Didn't say it was great D, but if MacT woulda kept the pressure turned on, it wouldn't have had to be. STL couldn't do anything with us flying at them, even on the PK. As soon as we sit back, we get into BIG trouble. It's simply not our game. Our game is speed, our game is pressure, our game is goals. I honestly believe on nights like this, you need all your difference-makers playing. MC is one of those.

I dogged Brew, OaS and Smith in my game report, because yes, they played bad.

Comrie woulda helped by controlling the play more, possibly burying a chance or two with Hemsky and Smyth, allowed for even more depth at the bottom of our lineup, and many other things. You can't really measure something like that and say "this is where it woulda changed things", but you can't deny Comrie makes that lineup better. And a better lineup in theory should yield better results on all levels. I honestly believe on nights like this, you need all your difference-makers playing. MC is one of those.

I really don't think it was the players who stopped skating, i really think it was MacTavish who said "okay guys, time to lay back and protect the lead". My reasoning, because this ALWAYS seems to happen. We score, next shift, whole new team. An entire roster of players does not change it's style because it feels like it, it changes it because it's been told to.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
10-21-2003, 11:12 PM
  #129
Narnia
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Narnia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,394
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Narnia
This is what I was afraid would happen with the Comrie holdout. When the team wins nothing is said. The minute the team loses, they lose because they don't have Comrie. It was mentioned on On The Fly on the NHL Network by Neil Smith and I'm not sure what the other guy's name was. It really is ridiculous when you think of it. Comrie is called every name in the book and called a whiner by some fans on here and yet some fans say they lost because Comrie isn't here. I don't understand this reasoning at all.

__________________
"He just ate up Robyn Regehr for dinner, a spectacular play by Hemsky, and Robyn Regehr has got doo doo all over his face" - Rod Phillips call on Hemsky's goal vs the Flames
Narnia is offline  
Old
10-22-2003, 03:06 AM
  #130
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
pfft. The ONLY goal that could perhaps be blamed on Salo is Demitra's. What you just said is one of those marvelous times when somebody is capable of literaly forcing words out of their backside. (questionable on the breakaway goal perhaps a bit, but I'm like many others who say unless the Goals MISSES the puck on the breakaway it's not their fault)
Try the Weight goal. - I would have saved it. His positioning was terrible

The Danton goal - Ah, another rebound.

The deflection and the 5-hole goal were not his fault, I'll give you that.

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
10-22-2003, 04:26 AM
  #131
gretzky2kurri
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#2
and we dont need Comrie?? haha what a joke....SIGN MIKE COMRIE...CLAP CLAP, CLAP-CLAP -CLAP.....
Ya RIGHT! He woulda saved us last night? Don't think so.

Face it. Comrie is done here. The sooner you do.....the better.

gretzky2kurri is offline  
Old
10-22-2003, 05:54 AM
  #132
oilers_guy_eddie
Craig's on it.
 
oilers_guy_eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: This Is Fail County
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,859
vCash: 500
No kidding. Comrie provides offense, and that's about all. The one thing that's looking strong on this team- offense.

oilers_guy_eddie is offline  
Old
10-22-2003, 05:58 AM
  #133
ZIM
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilers89
This is what I was afraid would happen with the Comrie holdout. When the team wins nothing is said. The minute the team loses, they lose because they don't have Comrie. It was mentioned on On The Fly on the NHL Network by Neil Smith and I'm not sure what the other guy's name was. It really is ridiculous when you think of it. Comrie is called every name in the book and called a whiner by some fans on here and yet some fans say they lost because Comrie isn't here. I don't understand this reasoning at all.
In just about every thread I reply to I advocate signing and playing Comrie - win or lose.
The majority sentiment here is that Comrie is gone. As the number of threads proclaiming that players such as Horcoff, Chimera, and Isbister, to name but a few, are playing poorly it will become obvious, even to the haters, that we are better with Mike.

 
Old
10-22-2003, 06:06 AM
  #134
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by omar
In just about every thread I reply to I advocate signing and playing Comrie - win or lose.
The majority sentiment here is that Comrie is gone. As the number of threads proclaiming that players such as Horcoff, Chimera, and Isbister, to name but a few, are playing poorly it will become obvious, even to the haters, that we are better with Mike.
Was there ever any doubt? They didn't lose last night because Comrie wasn't in the lineup. They should have crushed the Blues. The Comre angle in my opinion is a moot point.

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
10-22-2003, 06:21 AM
  #135
kingbrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,196
vCash: 500
good game last night guys

kingbrath is offline  
Old
10-22-2003, 06:26 AM
  #136
goldenchild
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Howard 100
Country: India
Posts: 535
vCash: 500
As dissapointing as the second period was I think that is just part of being this young, guys lose their cool when things start going the wrong way it's a shame they blew the 2 points enev bigger since I had put $10 on them in my on-line gambling account. Also lost $10 on the marlins so the night was just a waste for me. there were some positives in the game though, I thought Marty Reasoner was once again very good, Dvorak really used his speed well, Isbister seemed more determined and overall they created a lot of chances. Salo has to be better and the D was way too loose.

goldenchild is offline  
Old
10-22-2003, 07:04 AM
  #137
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,880
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
Try the Weight goal. - I would have saved it. His positioning was terrible

The Danton goal - Ah, another rebound.

The deflection and the 5-hole goal were not his fault, I'll give you that.
Ya, Goalies give up rebounds. SO sure - I'll put some blame on him for that. But the reason that goal happened was because Horcoff was at the top of the circle while Danton was infront of the net with the puck and ALL the time in the world.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
10-22-2003, 07:44 AM
  #138
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
Ya, Goalies give up rebounds. SO sure - I'll put some blame on him for that. But the reason that goal happened was because Horcoff was at the top of the circle while Danton was infront of the net with the puck and ALL the time in the world.
One thing goalies work on is rebounds. Some goalies are good at controlling them, some are not. Brodeur and Lalime are 2 goalies that are good at that. And yes, this is something you can correct and work on. Lalime did just that when he came to Ottawa and worked with the goalie coach.

Look at the play again. Salo made the save, and kicked it to the front of the end where Danton was. It may look insignificant but it's not. You're right goalies will give up rebounds but they have to learn how to control them. Anyone who's played hockey will know that. The guy who plays goal for my team rarely gives up rebounds or at least tries to control them.

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
10-22-2003, 09:50 AM
  #139
Hemmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ethan Moreau for MVP! NOW! VOTE!
Posts: 675
vCash: 500
I don't know about anyone else, but I thought this game was entertaining as hell. I mean, yeah we came out on the losing end of it, but it was fun to watch.

Most people say that the game was lost in the middle 40 minutes - I don't think it took nearly that long. An abysmal second period was all it took. We dominated the first 10-15 and the last 20.

Salo didn't play extremely well, and I thought Conks was actually going to start this one.

Dvorak played great I thought, and he is one or two goals away from a flood of points IMO. The power poll last night had him leading the Oil in points by the end of the season.

Torres should have had 4 goals. We hit so many posts it was ludicrous.
Marty had one, I think York had one, Torres had 3,

Overall, I chalk this one up to bad luck and youthful exhuberance. I focus on the positives (4 goals, dominant start/finish to the game) and remind players that a game requires 60 minutes of focus, and that doesn't change with a 3 goal lead. Then, next time I see the Oil in the same position, I call a timeout (immediately after York's goal for instance), calm the boys down, and tell them to prepare, because the other team is going to come hard. I remind them to focus, and of what got them up 3-0 in the first place.

Hemmer is offline  
Old
10-22-2003, 03:07 PM
  #140
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,880
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. van Nostrin
One thing goalies work on is rebounds. Some goalies are good at controlling them, some are not. Brodeur and Lalime are 2 goalies that are good at that. And yes, this is something you can correct and work on. Lalime did just that when he came to Ottawa and worked with the goalie coach.

Look at the play again. Salo made the save, and kicked it to the front of the end where Danton was. It may look insignificant but it's not. You're right goalies will give up rebounds but they have to learn how to control them. Anyone who's played hockey will know that. The guy who plays goal for my team rarely gives up rebounds or at least tries to control them.
YOU take a look at that play again. Tommy HAD to hug the post and protect from something sneaking in short side. There is no way that he can controll that rebound from that angle and that close in. It's not like he made a kick save and it went right to a guy 5 feet away - the puck was about 3/4 of a foot away from him - which is considered GOOD rebound control!

edit: fix spelling!

thome_26 is offline  
Old
10-22-2003, 03:17 PM
  #141
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
YOU take a look at that play again. Tommy HAD to hug the post and protect from something sneaking in short side. There is no way that he can controll that rebound from that angle and that close in. It's not like he made a kick save and it went right to a guy 5 feet away - the puck was about 3/4 of a foot away from him - which is considered GOOD rebound control!

edit: fix spelling!
Thanks professor

He could not have kicked the puck to the back of the net? Tommy was guilty of bad rebounds on other shots throughout the game. It just didn't cost them at that point.

Face it, it wasn't his night. I not saying they should trade him. He's not to blame 100% for the loss but a huge reason why the Oilers did lose is because of subpar goaltending.

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
10-22-2003, 03:25 PM
  #142
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
YOU take a look at that play again. Tommy HAD to hug the post and protect from something sneaking in short side. There is no way that he can controll that rebound from that angle and that close in. It's not like he made a kick save and it went right to a guy 5 feet away - the puck was about 3/4 of a foot away from him - which is considered GOOD rebound control!
Actually, if Salo gets his paddle out and steers the "slow-moving" shot to the corner, the play never develops at all. No need to make a save. No need to have a rebound. No need for Horcoff to cover Danton. (Though, Horcoff should have been there)

momentai 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 03:58 AM.

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.