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

York in Chicago, may play on sunday!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-06-2004, 05:39 PM
  #26
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matts
said if he was gonna move anyone he'd be looking for a soft trade for the bottom six.

Yzerman isn't gonna play much centreanymorefor the Wings,it would seem. So they thought they needed to address centre before they got Lang but then Draper goes down and then Datsyuk.

So now they really need a centre.

It looks like a perfect match.
Hmmm, good point. I hadn't thought about Detroit's injuries. That LW lock style that the wings play should fit the sluggish Oates a bit better as well. I think Holland can do better ... but maybe not.

Holland has a history of listening to his players too, Chelios and Shanahan are the reason that Hull is a Wing. So maybe we can hope that the Golden Brett lobbies for Oates ... fingers crossed.

igor* is offline  
Old
03-06-2004, 06:13 PM
  #27
coyote
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 834
vCash: 500
Lines for tomorrow
Smyth-York-Horcoff
Torres-Nedved-Dvorak
Moreau-Oates-Pisani
Chimera-Stoll-Laraque

My guess anyway. Would rather have Hemsky in then Oates.

coyote is offline  
Old
03-06-2004, 06:31 PM
  #28
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by momentai
Haha, Spaz is this akin to the argument we had a while back? That's fine if the doctor gave him a choice and he wants to play. I don't blame him - that's what every player in the same position (for the most part) will choose. But sometimes I think it would be in the management's decision if they sat him down until the doctor says he is 100% or at least close enough... It was brutal watching Janne play last year on what could not have been more than 60 on that knee.
And did not the doctor clear him to play. (read the article again it clearly says this) There are risks from coming back from every injury. Man I have had lots of sports injuries, and doctors always give you a list of risks that is there job.

But obviously the doctor and the player feel that they can come back.

My point is if the doctor has cleared him to play why would managment say no? The doctor would obviously know more than management about an injury.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
03-06-2004, 06:38 PM
  #29
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaz44
And did not the doctor clear him to play. (read the article again it clearly says this) There are risks from coming back from every injury. Man I have had lots of sports injuries, and doctors always give you a list of risks that is there job.

But obviously the doctor and the player feel that they can come back.

My point is if the doctor has cleared him to play why would managment say no? The doctor would obviously know more than management about an injury.
And my argument has always been... the doctor saying "you're cleared to play" does not necessarily mean "you're healthy".

Why would management say no? Mike Comrie and Mike York's ineffectiveness down the stretch last year comes to mind. Both were cleared to play and I think it would have been the best for all considered if they had sat and healed up for a longer period of time - whether that meant another week or two or shutting them down for the rest of the season.

momentai is offline  
Old
03-06-2004, 06:45 PM
  #30
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by momentai
And my argument has always been... the doctor saying "you're cleared to play" does not necessarily mean "you're healthy".

Why would management say no? Mike Comrie and Mike York's ineffectiveness down the stretch last year comes to mind. Both were cleared to play and I think it would have been the best for all considered if they had sat and healed up for a longer period of time - whether that meant another week or two or shutting them down for the rest of the season.
But as I have mentioned and I heard from a source inside the organization. Management didn't want Comrie to play, Comrie wanted his bonuses. It is one of the many reasons that he isn't here anymore.

As for York, as you can see. He wants to play and in this case he can not get any worse. (already mentioned in both dailies last week) Athletes play when they are not 100% healthy. In fact if they only played when they were 100% healthy there would be no games by March.

All pro-athletes play with injuries in every sport.

I played high level soccer for years and I can tell you I played with injuries, if I hadn't I would never play. Because in high level sports you ALWAYS have some kind of injury.

You don't have the luxury of waiting for every injury to completely heal. You are asking your body to do things it was never meant to do.


Last edited by hockeyaddict101: 03-06-2004 at 06:49 PM.
hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
03-06-2004, 08:07 PM
  #31
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaz44
As for York, as you can see. He wants to play and in this case he can not get any worse. (already mentioned in both dailies last week) Athletes play when they are not 100% healthy. In fact if they only played when they were 100% healthy there would be no games by March.
I totally understand that. But there are certain cases and certain situations where a player will want to play... a doctor can say "he is cleared to play"... but it's management's decision to say how effective he'll be as a result of those bearing through the injuries sustained.

If the player isn't going to be effective on the ice... I say what's the point in letting him play? For example. If York's cast severely limits his ability to shoot the puck and limits his ability to handle the puck... what is the point of letting him back on the ice? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to let him sit and heal rather than not "injure himself further" on the ice?

momentai is offline  
Old
03-06-2004, 09:34 PM
  #32
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
I would say

that enough Oilers have appeared to have came back too early that no one can be questioned for questioning their track record and thus being suspecious everytime a guy seems to come back quicker than anticipated

Matts is offline  
Old
03-07-2004, 12:25 AM
  #33
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matts
that enough Oilers have appeared to have came back too early that no one can be questioned for questioning their track record and thus being suspecious everytime a guy seems to come back quicker than anticipated
Only Oilers? I think I could go on record in every sport and in every team and find players that have come back early. It is what pro-athletes do, they play with injuries and they come back when they aren't 100%. Steve Yzerman has played on one leg for almost two seasons now.

Players have played with broken legs, bad knees, etc, etc. It is part of sport, especially pro sport and has been since the beginning of time and sports.

Yes I know all the conspiracy stories out there about the Oilers and how management MUST have forced players back against the advice of doctors and against the players will. (extremely hard to believe considering the strength of the NHLPA and that players seek second opinions all the time).

No one has a shred of evidence mind you. It is all gossip and innuendo but has been talked about so much that it is taken by some as fact and gospel. Yes talk about a rumour long enough and many people will take it as fact.

If you can provide me some evidence that shows that these players were forced to come back too early then I will believe you. But because it has been talked about on a message board does not make it true. Show me a credible source that backs up your suspicions.

Even your sentence "players that appeared" to come back early shows that you have no evidence, it just seems to you (the medical expert that you must be) that the players came back too early.

Is there someone on this message board that examined these players personally or has some kind of proof that management was browbeating the players into coming back early?

Yes of course managment want players back as quickly as possible but the players also want to play as it is their livliehood and they have bonuses at stake, or they want to earn a new contract, and they just want to compete. Do players come back too quickly? yep. It is part of pro sports and it not a new phenomenon suddenly invented by the Oilers organization.

Look at this York injury. First he had to be cleared by the doctors, once he was cleared the Oilers organization leaves it up to the player. This is not sinister, they don't know how the player is feeling, how much pain he feels, whether he feels comfortable enough to play on it? Only a person with the injury can assess this. Also different people heal at different rates, have higher pain thresholds, etc. etc.

York may try it and find that it wasn't comfortable and maybe he has to come back out. People will say "see he was FORCED back too soon" It may be that he can't be as good as he thought he could be, or he and the team may feel that it is hurting the team, or it wasn't as strong as they thought". This can only be assessed by game action.

Once he plays it is up to the doctors, player and team to sit back and assess things. But from experience I can tell you that the doctors (once they have cleared the player) and the team rely on the player to properly communicate how they are feeling, and how the injury is responding.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
03-07-2004, 01:09 AM
  #34
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by momentai
I totally understand that. But there are certain cases and certain situations where a player will want to play... a doctor can say "he is cleared to play"... but it's management's decision to say how effective he'll be as a result of those bearing through the injuries sustained.

If the player isn't going to be effective on the ice... I say what's the point in letting him play? For example. If York's cast severely limits his ability to shoot the puck and limits his ability to handle the puck... what is the point of letting him back on the ice? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to let him sit and heal rather than not "injure himself further" on the ice?
Absolutely. And props for carrying the common sense banner on this thread Though once the medical staff clears them to play the insurance is no longer payable (assuming the player has been out long enough for insurance to have kicked in). Still, it is the Oilers prerogative to play the player or carry him as an extra forward. Or at the very least to limit their ice-time and responsibilities until they are fully fit.

.
.
.

I know nothing of the conspiracies that Spaz44 speaks about ... that seems far-fetched to me. I do think that there is room to question the judgment of Oilers management on the handling of players returning from injury in the past. That there is significant hard evidence showing appalling EV+/- numbers from a long list of Oilers who 'returned early' in the past. That's a fact.

If we work on the assumption that the Oilers coahes and management are mere mortals, then I think we can safely assume they have erred on some occasions. :p

igor* is offline  
Old
03-07-2004, 01:27 AM
  #35
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by igor
Absolutely. And props for carrying the common sense banner on this thread Though once the medical staff clears them to play the insurance is no longer payable (assuming the player has been out long enough for insurance to have kicked in). Still, it is the Oilers prerogative to play the player or carry him as an extra forward. Or at the very least to limit their ice-time and responsibilities until they are fully fit.

.
.
.

I know nothing of the conspiracies that Spaz44 speaks about ... that seems far-fetched to me. I do think that there is room to question the judgment of Oilers management on the handling of players returning from injury in the past. That there is significant hard evidence showing appalling EV+/- numbers from a long list of Oilers who 'returned early' in the past. That's a fact.

If we work on the assumption that the Oilers coahes and management are mere mortals, then I think we can safely assume they have erred on some occasions. :p
Have you checked these same stats for every team in the NHL? Sorry +/- stats do not prove that the player came back too soon from injury.

I can use my common sense and think of other factors that may be at play. How bout the player not being in game shape? I would think this would effect his defensive assignments and would have an effect on +/-.

And how do you know they "returned early"? Earlier than what? Earlier than the doctors thought? Earlier than the player thought? Earlier than an original prognosis which can vary from patient to patient depending on factors such as pain threshold, difference in healing times, we all don't heal in the same timeframe. Define returning early please? Is it that every player that has a bad +/- when they returned must have returned too early?

In order to prove a correlation you would have to be able to isolate that coming back from the injury too soon would be the only thing that would effect +/-. It would be evan hard to define "return early". This "fact" doesn't prove anything.

And nowhere did I say the coaches and management hadn't erred or that they are not human. But I am sure there just as many cases where the player thought he was ready and was not. Aren't they human as well? Or perhaps the doctor made a wrong diagnosis, or thought the player was ready but was not. Again they are human and could be in error.

The above paragraph IMO is where the whole "the Oilers management erred" argument falls down. Because we don't know who it was in any case that decided they should come back. Was it the player? Coaches? Doctors? Is it a joint decision?

Common sense tells me that it is a joint decision and if there was an error that all parties would be at fault or simply that the injury didn't respond exactly as expected and it was nobody's fault. I think the latter is more likely IMO.

I am not trying to say a coach has never rushed a player, I don't know that. But is is just as possible that the player made the decision to come back, the injury didn't respond in the way that it was supposed to. The player didn't feel as comfortable in a game situation as he did in practice, etc, etc etc. I can think of dozens of different scenarios.

I just believe that there are just too many intangibles and other possibilites and to automatically assume that the Oilers management and coaches are automatically at fault (or if there is even "fault") especially when none of us know all the details of any injury situation or are privy to any of the discussions surrounding a decision to return from injury.


Last edited by hockeyaddict101: 03-07-2004 at 03:34 AM.
hockeyaddict101 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 09:42 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.