I think they'll make playoffs next year. They did too well too early with the easy part of the schedule, got high on themselves before entering a tough road-stretch... momentum can be a *****.
They're definitely going to have to address a couple things this off-season, but I feel better about the team this year than last.
The Leafs lost 2 of those picks in the Kessel trade, so you can remove them.
Also there is usually quite a drop off from the top 3 in the draft to the rest of the top 10... if you look at the teams who've drafted top 3 twice since 2005 it looks like this:
Penguins*
Blackhawks*
Tampa Bay
Colorado
Florida
Edmonton
Florida, Tampa, Colorado and Edmonton are the most recent teams to do this... so time will tell if its successful or not. But adding another top 3 pick would be huge for this team down the road.
I'm so sick of posters on HF accusing teams of tanking (specifically Oilers). No team tanks on purpose. On one of the forums on the main board I said the following:
----------
Teams in the NHL DO NOT TANK. These are professional athletes. They get paid millions of dollars to perform. Even if someone told them to tank, it's not going to happen.
And if any team did tell it's players to tank....... in this day and age, it would come to light and the team would be penalized heavily and stripped of it's draft pick(s). The owners and general managers would face stiff stiff penalties (maybe millions). Nobody is going to risk all that and their reputation to tank on purpose.
Teams that are bottom feeders is result of them being poorly put together, injuries, lack of talent, bad coaching, and many other reasons. No team tries to lose on purpose. Jobs are on the line. If you were in there place what you do? You would work your butt off and try to make the best decisions to help your team win because if you didn't you would be FIRED.
In professional sports, there has to be winners and losers. Some teams stay losers for longer for reasons mentioned earlier. But it's not because they are tanking on purpose. Give your heads a shake
----------
As the year goes on and the Oilers drift closer and closer to the 1st overall pick, more posters are going to accuse the Oilers for intentionaly tanking.
Plus if we do get a top 5 pick (which seems very likely), posters in future will be referencing tanking as well (like they do with Pittsburgh) if the Oilers prove to be as successful in future seasons. So it might not be a bad idea to get our arguments ready
I used to think the same way.
I would never accuse the players of tanking.
I used to believe management put together a team to intentionally fail, so i disagree with your rant.
now, I just think management intentionally iced a bad team to get the #1 pick where we got hall, and since then they have just been totally incompetent.
two #1 picks and eberle blossoming, and the team is 2nd last and on a worse pace than the last two years?
you may need to be the one to give your head a shake.
The Oilers biggest problem is lack of depth. They are competitive as long as there are no injuries, as was proven at the beginning of the year. However, reality says you will have injuries. And without depth, you will struggle. And with extra amounts of injuries, you will suck. That's my take.
When you look at the players we have acquired to "help" this team over the last two summers and the contracts they possess/have been given it seems pretty obvious that we are indeed tanking.
Lots of one year/pending ufa's there. No commitment, no big dollars or especially no big term. They are nothing more than placeholders. Stopgaps, until the drafted kids are ready for the show.
Who could they have gotten? A lot of the big free agents commanded large contracts that would not have run out until after we'd have to deal with Hall/Eberle/RNH/MPS/etc... If we had made a big splash like that, we might be screwed down the road for contracts.
We got guys like Hordichuk, Eager, Potter, Belanger etc... who are supposed to be solid depth players. Some have been adequate, while others have disappointed. Whether it's a failure by pro scouting or just the environment these players are in, they're not doing well. However, I don't think it's intentional tanking. If they play the way a lot of people expected they would, those are the kinds of guys that solid teams need at depth positions.
The Leafs lost 2 of those picks in the Kessel trade, so you can remove them.
Also there is usually quite a drop off from the top 3 in the draft to the rest of the top 10... if you look at the teams who've drafted top 3 twice since 2005 it looks like this:
Penguins*
Blackhawks*
Tampa Bay
Colorado
Florida
Edmonton
Florida, Tampa, Colorado and Edmonton are the most recent teams to do this... so time will tell if its successful or not. But adding another top 3 pick would be huge for this team down the road.
Well I wasn't sure about what to do with Toronto, but they certainly derived value from the Seguin/Hamilton picks. They got the 5th overall L Schenn pick from the Islanders, a natural 7th overall in Kadri, and Phil Kessel (originally a 5th overall pick). If you wanna go by original assets, it's 7th, 2nd, and 10th overall picks.
Yea, I agree with the dropoff thing. I used top 10 because that post I made was actually in a reply to someone else about that.
I'm so sick of posters on HF accusing teams of tanking (specifically Oilers). No team tanks on purpose. On one of the forums on the main board I said the following:
You think that the Oilers finished last in the NHL twice... by accident? by bad luck? or by incompetence? or by plan? Take your pick. The Quinn year was tanking by incompetence. Last year, the Oilers tanked by design. This year - the Oilers assembled the worst defense in the conference, combined with two inconsistent goalies and a rookie #1 centre. If that's not a designed plan for tanking, then I don't know what is.
No team tank on purpose? Laughable.
Tell that to the Penguins before the Mario Lemieux draft pick. They tanked on purpose.
"Pittsburgh coach Lou Angotti later admitted that a conscious decision was made to finish the season as the team with the worst record, stating in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that a mid-season lunch prompted the plan, in light of the fact that there was a high chance of the franchise folding if Lemieux was not drafted.[5] In particular, Angotti gave the example of a game the Penguins were winning 3–1, at which point general manager Eddie Johnston asked the coach "what are you doing?" in the first intermission of the game that was eventually lost 6–3. "
Oh I didn't hit and run. I've read the comments. Your comment with a few others were useless and I don't waste time on things like that (usually). All it does is create hostility. And life is to short to focus on negative things
Oh I didn't hit and run. I've read the comments. Your comment with a few others were useless and I don't waste time on things like that (usually). All it does is create hostility. And life is to short to focus on negative things
The OP was a disconnected full on rant. Kind of seems like focusing on negative things..
I really don't see the point of a thread like this or how anybody thinks it leads to civil discussion.
I don't think teams tank anymore, the need to win for organizational income is significant in the modern era. Current NHL teams don't tank on purpose when doing so could cost millions in lost revenue.. it's not 1960 any longer.
The NHL lottery needs to end...
If the Oil end up 28th and get lucky in the lottery and pick first three years in a row there will be discussion about this issue. That said, if the Oil end up 28th it's not because they tanked on purpose, no team tanks on purpose, they tank because they have a bad GM....
The OP was a disconnected full on rant. Kind of seems like focusing on negative things..
I really don't see the point of a thread like this or how anybody thinks it leads to civil discussion.
The OP states that he doesn't believe that professional athlete's would purposely quit or throw games, how is this not a valid discussion point?
Seems to me there is plenty of civil discussion in this thread, I don't see anyone throwing mud at anyone or questioning the right of a poster to have an opinion.
The OP states that he doesn't believe that professional athlete's would purposely quit or throw games, how is this not a valid discussion point?
Seems to me there is plenty of civil discussion in this thread, I don't see anyone throwing mud at anyone or questioning the right of a poster to have an opinion.
Well, almost no one...
lol serious?
The OP in the threadpost actually questions peoples right to have an opinion. The whole premise being he's sick of that opinion which he states several times.
The title of the thread starts out with "sick of people" and goes south from there.
The author rants about: (well not much):
Quote:
I'm so sick of posters on HF accusing teams of tanking (specifically Oilers). No team tanks on purpose
A premise already debunked by Master Lok in post 37. Thread over. So already a clear definitive case study indicating the OP is wrong.
Then the poster continues with myriad No way explanations and that teams don't tank, can't tank, and that if they did tank the league would do well something. Sometime. Somehow. Although he's not clear on what. The author might want to let us in on sanctions that have recently occurred or a ruling that occurred.
He then rants some more on "no way a team or an athlete ever tanks" (which is already wrong. and goes on to eruditely tell us to:
"Give your heads a shake"
To put it politely the reasoning and argument in the OP is disconnected and incomprehensible. Its at best randomly expressed in rant form.
Your specific objection to criticism of the OP being even more incomprehensible.
Maybe if the OP actually supported others opinions instead of ranting about them it might welcome proper dialogue.
The OP in the threadpost actually questions peoples right to have an opinion. The whole premise being he's sick of that opinion which he states several times.
The title of the thread starts out with "sick of people" and goes south from there.
The author rants about: (well not much):
A premise already debunked by Master Lok in post 37. Thread over. So already a clear definitive case study indicating the OP is wrong.
Then the poster continues with myriad No way explanations and that teams don't tank, can't tank, and that if they did tank the league would do well something. Sometime. Somehow. Although he's not clear on what. The author might want to let us in on sanctions that have recently occurred or a ruling that occurred.
He then rants some more on "no way a team or an athlete ever tanks" (which is already wrong. and goes on to eruditely tell us to:
"Give your heads a shake"
To put it politely the reasoning and argument in the OP is disconnected and incomprehensible. Its at best randomly expressed in rant form.
Your specific objection to criticism of the OP being even more incomprehensible.
Maybe if the OP actually supported others opinions instead of ranting about them it might welcome proper dialogue.
Actually, the OP prefaced the post he quoted as posted on the main board as a response during a discussion that took place somewhere other than here, so to claim it was directed at you is misleading at the very least.
As for his thought process being invalid because it doesn't support "others opinions", who's opinions do posters need to support? The "Boycott This Team" thread was as much of a rant as has been posted in ages around here, chalk full of discounting of others views, and yet you were fully supportive of that OP's right to express his opinion in an emotional and contentious matter. Why the double standard? This is a public forum, and if you don't feel the thread is up to your standards or don't have a constructive post to add, don't bother posting in it. Which, may I remind you, has been a point you have pointed out to dozens of different posters here on multiple occasions.
I don't think that this team is intentionally losing for a second. Others feel differently. It's a discussion point, and as the thread shows, people have different opinions on the concept. Who are you to judge what points are worthy of discussion and which aren't?
Every oil fan would love a new home and the pics today made me happy. I'm not old but I think a new place would connect the youth with the old. Stories, ..... Great stories. I think there's only great stories
Actually, the OP prefaced the post he quoted as posted on the main board as a response during a discussion that took place somewhere other than here, so to claim it was directed at you is misleading at the very least.
OK then. by that logic I have an invective driven series of slurs and swear words I can copy and paste verbatim from somewhere on the internet and slap it up here whether or not its appropriate and direct it at you. Is that appropriate?
When I say the author was not welcoming others opinions with that quote its clear that it was in his own words, and that it was his thoughts, which he saw fit to forward here, due to his frustration with Oiler fans here or elsewhere. you still wanna argue that angle?
Quote:
As for his thought process being invalid because it doesn't support "others opinions", who's opinions do posters need to support?
His thought process is invalid because its largely devoid of thought. Several posters have effectively outed the definitive declarations made in the OP already.
Quote:
The "Boycott This Team" thread was as much of a rant as has been posted in ages around here, chalk full of discounting of others views, and yet you were fully supportive of that OP's right to express his opinion in an emotional and contentious matter. Why the double standard? This is a public forum, and if you don't feel the thread is up to your standards or don't have a constructive post to add, don't bother posting in it. Which, may I remind you, has been a point you have pointed out to dozens of different posters here on multiple occasions.
I don't mind posters that will stand by their opinion and take the time to argue and defend thier posts. Which Eddy did full well in the other thread. he was paying attention, participating, and monitoring his own thread. Not like this driveby freeform rant by a poster I've never even seen here before.
Quote:
I don't think that this team is intentionally losing for a second. Others feel differently. It's a discussion point, and as the thread shows, people have different opinions on the concept. Who are you to judge what points are worthy of discussion and which aren't?
Well I guess I have a weakness for a person to be able to express what their position even is in a somewhat sentient fashion and by using supporting substantiation that makes any sense whatsoever.
OK then. by that logic I have an invective driven series of slurs and swear words I can copy and paste verbatim from somewhere on the internet and slap it up here whether or not its appropriate and direct it at you. Is that appropriate?
When I say the author was not welcoming others opinions with that quote its clear that it was in his own words, and that it was his thoughts, which he saw fit to forward here, due to his frustration with Oiler fans here or elsewhere. you still wanna argue that angle?
His thought process is invalid because its largely devoid of thought. Several posters have effectively outed the definitive declarations made in the OP already.
I don't mind posters that will stand by their opinion and take the time to argue and defend thier posts. Which Eddy did full well in the other thread. he was paying attention, participating, and monitoring his own thread. Not like this driveby freeform rant by a poster I've never even seen here before.
Well I guess I have a weakness for a person to be able to express what their position even is in a somewhat sentient fashion and by using supporting substantiation that makes any sense whatsoever.
What substantiation was there?
NOOOOOO, NEEVVEERRRR Happens!!!!11111!!
Because I didn't see any.
With respect, you're an experienced poster and I have no real dog in this fight but man I hate folks (out of the gate) responding to an OP with "What’s the over/under on how long this thread lasts?"
Not nice, let it roll and others will make that decision if needed.
With respect, you're an experienced poster and I have no real dog in this fight but man I hate folks (out of the gate) responding to an OP with "What’s the over/under on how long this thread lasts?"
Not nice, let it roll and others will make that decision if needed.
For sure. But many of us more experienced folk here have witnessed a once worthwhile board with alot of informed and knowledgeable posting turn into a box of white noise and random and meaningless threads.
My experience has been OP's with little informed content, no substantiation, and that involve controversial topics that have been discussed to death anywhere and often closed, will seldom lead to any good.
I could leave it alone, sure, but its like looking at weeds growing in the front yard..
Alternately I guess anybody that wants this board to be more than just noise can just get out of dodge again and try and find a better place. Any links..
For sure. But many of us more experienced folk here have witnessed a once worthwhile board with alot of informed and knowledgeable posting turn into a box of white noise and random and meaningless threads.
My experience has been OP's with little informed content, no substantiation, and that involve controversial topics that have been discussed to death anywhere and often closed, will seldom lead to any good.
I could leave it alone, sure, but its like looking at weeds growing in the front yard..
Alternately I guess anybody that wants this board to be more than just noise can just get out of dodge again and try and find a better place. Any links..
Based on my limited experience here it's a good board, as most on HF are. I guess I remember the early days when I was new and posted subjects that were less than apropos yet discussion followed. It was a much less active board than this so you may have a point about white noise... That said, everyone needs time to learn.. Carry on.
Oh, for the record, some may wonder why I'm posting here.... the race for Nail is the primary reason but Howson and the Western Conference in general are considerations also.
Carry on.
