This I can accept. No worries. Its boredom silly season and not much to talk about here.
Longing for years where playoffs is the actual topic instead.
Ugh no doubt. It will be nice when we get to talk about Eberles clutch goal in double OT or Hall carrying the team on his back to a win we had no business getting.
Until then, let the 20 page dissection of Corey Potter commence!
I love the built in proactive excuses. Do well up here and no one will mention it further. Struggle and its already in place as a reason.
3 of the locations on the map don't even involve much travel. Peoria, Grand Rapids, Chicago would be less travel than AJHL clubs encounter. LA to SF is a short hop as well. Also pretty sure the team had a longbreak before the Peoria game.(so I'm not sure why "A" is listed on the map as travel. Did they travel to the Peoria game at the last minute?) Plus what better place to fly from than Chicago which would have a hell of a lot of connecting flights.
Lets be frank here. Any player that gets a callup is jacked. Fatigue is seldom really an issue in the first couple games up. Especially for a younger player.
4 games in 4 days + travel and maybe 5 in 5? If this isn't an issue then why don't we see 3 in 3's in the NHL or 4 in 4's? Come on Replacement adrenaline can only take you so far when you are exhausted.
__________________ Treat Others As You Would Like To Be Treated
4 games in 4 days + travel and maybe 5 in 5? If this isn't an issue then why don't we see 3 in 3's in the NHL or 4 in 4's? Come on Replacement adrenaline can only take you so far when you are exhausted.
The team doesn't seem to think its any issue, I don't think its an issue, several posters have agreed it shouldn't be much of an issue.
Clearly theres different takes on this.
I guess I come from a different era where games were played in the NHL like this with no questions asked. Much tougher games as well being that they were playoff games and even with long OT's involved.
ftr at this point the discussion isn't at all about Omark. for me the discussion is on why the shift in thought.
People are saying that the NHL doesn't do this anymore because its untenable. But I don't see any evidence that it was untenable. What I think actually occurred is the NHLPA complained about that type of scheduling just because they didn't want to do it. Not because they couldn't. Clearly players could play those schedules and play them at high levels.
I challenge anybody that watched those 1980's first round series to tell me that those players were coasting.
The team doesn't seem to think its any issue, I don't think its an issue, several posters have agreed it shouldn't be much of an issue.
Clearly theres different takes on this.
I guess I come from a different era where games were played in the NHL like this with no questions asked. Much tougher games as well being that they were playoff games and even with long OT's involved.
ftr at this point the discussion isn't at all about Omark. for me the discussion is on why the shift in thought.
People are saying that the NHL doesn't do this anymore because its untenable. But I don't see any evidence that it was untenable. What I think actually occurred is the NHLPA complained about that type of scheduling just because they didn't want to do it. Not because they couldn't. Clearly players could play those schedules and play them at high levels.
I challenge anybody that watched those 1980's first round series to tell me that those players were coasting.
And how many of those guys rode buses for the first 3 days, every day? And traveled EVERY day? A playoff series is between 2 teams, unless they played a 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 series, they would've stayed in the same spot at least a couple of those 5 days. I'm sure the NHLPA griped about it, and based on what we see from teams sometimes just on back to backs I can see why.
On one hand...I don't think there is any doubt fatigue could potentially factor into it.
On the other...no matter which affiliate is called up...he would be in the same boat.
Which kind of ties back to the point I want to make:
If the Oilers were remotely pro-active...they would ALWAYS have called someone up to carry on the roster as a black ace...rather than have every single option tied up with the AHL schedule right up until "zero hour".
This thing of having all our assets playing the maximum amount of ice time...gets to be taken to excess at times, IMO.
And how many of those guys rode buses for the first 3 days, every day? And traveled EVERY day? A playoff series is between 2 teams, unless they played a 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 series, they would've stayed in the same spot at least a couple of those 5 days. I'm sure the NHLPA griped about it, and based on what we see from teams sometimes just on back to backs I can see why.
Actually those 1st round series with 4 games in 5 nights were fantastic for fans. Often like I say with games going into multiple periods of OT. A smorgasboard of hockey. NOBODY was complaining about the level of play either. Those series were downright knock down drag out wars.
I'll say one thing about the bolded as well. I doubt its physiological fatigue and overwhelm occurring.
Moreso just todays relative level of regular season disinterest that results in players dogging it on back to backs. Poor performance in back to backs or at any part of a schedule is more a problem with motivation than with physiological limitation.
Actually those 1st round series with 4 games in 5 nights were fantastic for fans. Often like I say with games going into multiple periods of OT. A smorgasboard of hockey.
I'll say one thing about the bolded as well. I doubt its physiological fatigue and overwhelm occurring.
Moreso just todays relative level of regular season disinterest that results in players dogging it on back to backs. Poor performance in back to backs or at any part of a schedule is more a problem with motivation than with physiological limitation.
It might serve the fans well...for a time.
But i feel strongly about the tight schedule of todays NHL being a contributing factor to injuries.
I still say Crosbys' day to day schedule had become so over-booked and redonkulous it wore him down to the point where he got hurt.
And its more of the same in regards to Ovechkin AFAIC.
The team doesn't seem to think its any issue, I don't think its an issue, several posters have agreed it shouldn't be much of an issue.
Clearly theres different takes on this.
I guess I come from a different era where games were played in the NHL like this with no questions asked. Much tougher games as well being that they were playoff games and even with long OT's involved.
ftr at this point the discussion isn't at all about Omark. for me the discussion is on why the shift in thought.
People are saying that the NHL doesn't do this anymore because its untenable. But I don't see any evidence that it was untenable. What I think actually occurred is the NHLPA complained about that type of scheduling just because they didn't want to do it. Not because they couldn't. Clearly players could play those schedules and play them at high levels.
I challenge anybody that watched those 1980's first round series to tell me that those players were coasting.
Still with the false analogy. No one here is talking about two full rosters playing 5 games in 5 nights against each other. It's an entirely different situation. It's not relevant. At issue here is whether or not Omark (or Hartikainen or whoever) is at a competitive disadvantage in a situation like this, not whether playing 4 back to back games is really so tough.
I mean, for crying out loud, Renney was making cracks this season about how the Oilers were always having to face the Flames as the 2nd part of their back-to-back games. If he's choked enough by the competitive disadvantage represented by the Oilers playing a 2nd game in 2 nights against a rested Flames squad, imagine how pissed he'd be if the entire team was playing their 4th game in 4 nights against a rested Ducks squad.
Again, all anyone here is doing by pointing out the 4 games in 4 nights fact is noting a clear competitive disadvantage and, for the most part, tempering their expectations of Omark accordingly, as I'm sure the Oilers coaching staff is. You're the only guy here saying, "Meh, should be fine."
Anyway, re: your question of smoking NHLers, I remember Andrei Kovalenko, the Russian tank, used to smoke a pack a day, and I even seem to recall Al Iafrate famously bumming a smoke off a reporter between periods. Can you imagine that happening today? I'd love to see that so much. No sarcasm. That would seriously make my day. Footage of Byfuglien just puffing away at a Marlboro during intermission. The boards would Melt. Down.
The team doesn't seem to think its any issue, I don't think its an issue, several posters have agreed it shouldn't be much of an issue.
Clearly theres different takes on this.
I guess I come from a different era where games were played in the NHL like this with no questions asked. Much tougher games as well being that they were playoff games and even with long OT's involved.
ftr at this point the discussion isn't at all about Omark. for me the discussion is on why the shift in thought.
People are saying that the NHL doesn't do this anymore because its untenable. But I don't see any evidence that it was untenable. What I think actually occurred is the NHLPA complained about that type of scheduling just because they didn't want to do it. Not because they couldn't. Clearly players could play those schedules and play them at high levels.
I challenge anybody that watched those 1980's first round series to tell me that those players were coasting.
How so? They had to call someone up, it's not an ideal situation to be in but it had to be someone.
ps You might want to read up on what the lineup of the glory years Oilers was. lol.
Yes, one time you happen to agree with management because it fits into your anti-Omark agenda. You are easily one of the most critical posters here of this management team yet now that it fits your opinion you use their nod of the head for this as justification?
But oddly enough theres easier scheduling now and much more man games lost through injury then there were back then.
I don't know that theres any quantifying that scheduling is relating to injuries.
If it seems like it would be a stretch to say daily scheduling for todays NHLer could contribute to injuries...I don't think its worth my time to bother trying to convince you otherwise.
All I am saying is...I buy into it for less than a dollar.
And as for Omarks week specifically...its not a good thing. At the very least.
Yes, one time you happen to agree with management because it fits into your anti-Omark agenda. You are easily one of the most critical posters here of this management team yet now that it fits your opinion you use their nod of the head for this as justification?
Again I think the player in question will be fine.
I don't see any problem.
I have a problem with management in terms of personnel recruitment. I don't think I've ever expressed that they have a problem booking flights or scheduling timetables. You might want to fill me in on where and when I've ever stated something of that nature. I'll be waiting for your homework on that.
Again like I said several posts ago, and for the last several responses, this discussion to me at this point is about sheduling and different feelings about what represents ideal scheduling. I just find the difference of opinion interesting at this point having been a fan of compressed scheduling that used to occur.
Can you imagine that happening today? I'd love to see that so much. No sarcasm. That would seriously make my day. Footage of Byfuglien just puffing away at a Marlboro during intermission. The boards would Melt. Down. 
