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

Around the League #5: 2013 Play-offs Edition!: Nucks fire AV, AVs hire Roy

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-23-2013, 04:10 PM
  #326
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
I don't get saying the Hawks had an easy road to the Cup. They actually had one of the toughest possible. There were not any upsets in the West that year, they had to beat the other two division winners. The Predators, the #7 seed, had 47 wins that season, that's a ridiculously strong #7 seed. The West probably had 7 of the top 10 teams in the NHL. The worst team they played that playoffs were the Flyers, although most would agree Philly was a pretty strong team that had a crappy regular season and turned it on in the playoffs.

The Hawks have replaced a large portion of the depth they lost after 2010, but they're still not what they were in 2010. Bickell is a poor man's Byfuglien (based on how Buff played in 2010), Shaw is a poor man's Andrew Ladd, Stalberg is a poor man's Versteeg. Certainly better than the Andrew Brunette's, Fernando Pisani's, and Ben Smith's than formed the depth in the last two seasons. So there is the depth, but it's still not at the same level.

The biggest difference of all is that Toews simply hasn't produced offensively since the third round of 2010. Plays a great shutdown game, always involved, but your #1 C has to score at some point. The complete lack of production from Toews, and by association Saad, needs to change in a hurry. As in, tonight.
The Hawks in the West faced Preds, Canucks, Sharks. 3 teams that have never accomplished anything. Teams that perennially take it on the shin in the playoffs.

Patsies.

Heres the deal. A lot of sport and competition is psychological. People used to lose fights to Mike Tyson long before they entered the ring. The match was over before it started because somebody got into somebodies head. I saw the Hawks doing this throughout that spring and teams reacting, teams getting upset, teams getting overwhelmed. Teams being selfish and stupid.

Nashville never had a chance against Chicago and pretty much as futile as Sens playing Pens. If you have no offense to speak of, its hard to win many games.

Nucks are the nucks, next.

Sharks for whatever odd reason could never seem to put it together in the playoffs. They actually had something going there but got totally frustrated, angry, and reactive against the Hawks. Hawks got in their heads.

The Hawks didn't face one team that spring that was adequately prepared or that played well executed system D and all zone play which Wings are doing now. Nashville heavily reliant on goaltending, and two of the best D on the planet, not on great system play.

The West is better now, stronger, tougher, and Hawks would've lost to any of LA, STL, SJ. Even that 2010 club would have a hell of a time trying to beat any of those current clubs in a 7game series.

Hawks rose up at a weak moment for the WC. They have stiffer competition now. Its not clear they can even handle Detroit.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 05:33 PM
  #327
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26,091
vCash: 350
COL setting their greats up for failure? Sakic and Roy with Sherman, not sure that its as good as people out of COL are making it out to be.

Team having money issues and using this as a gimmick?

Just don't know how much success they can expect out of a guy coming from Junior straight to the NHL.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 05:37 PM
  #328
AlowlyOilersfan
Comrade
 
AlowlyOilersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,956
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
COL setting their greats up for failure? Sakic and Roy with Sherman, not sure that its as good as people out of COL are making it out to be.

Team having money issues and using this as a gimmick?
I think it's just "boys on the bus": the exact same as we are.

AlowlyOilersfan is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 06:15 PM
  #329
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
The Hawks in the West faced Preds, Canucks, Sharks. 3 teams that have never accomplished anything. Teams that perennially take it on the shin in the playoffs.

Patsies.

Heres the deal. A lot of sport and competition is psychological. People used to lose fights to Mike Tyson long before they entered the ring. The match was over before it started because somebody got into somebodies head. I saw the Hawks doing this throughout that spring and teams reacting, teams getting upset, teams getting overwhelmed. Teams being selfish and stupid.

Nashville never had a chance against Chicago and pretty much as futile as Sens playing Pens. If you have no offense to speak of, its hard to win many games.

Nucks are the nucks, next.

Sharks for whatever odd reason could never seem to put it together in the playoffs. They actually had something going there but got totally frustrated, angry, and reactive against the Hawks. Hawks got in their heads.

The Hawks didn't face one team that spring that was adequately prepared or that played well executed system D and all zone play which Wings are doing now. Nashville heavily reliant on goaltending, and two of the best D on the planet, not on great system play.

The West is better now, stronger, tougher, and Hawks would've lost to any of LA, STL, SJ. Even that 2010 club would have a hell of a time trying to beat any of those current clubs in a 7game series.

Hawks rose up at a weak moment for the WC. They have stiffer competition now. Its not clear they can even handle Detroit.
Well by this logic, pretty much every team that has come out of the west since the last lockout is in the same boat. LA beat Vancouver, who you've already dismissed as a respectable opponent. They beat the Blues who have never accomplished anything and choked again this year, and they beat the Coyotes who hadn't won a playoff series in 25 years. Obviously a free pass by your criteria.

The Canucks in 2011 only beat a gutted Hawks team, and those same Preds and Sharks you've already thrown to the scrap heap. Another free pass by the looks of it.

How about those 2009 Red Wings. The Blue Jackets as first round fodder, then an Anaheim team that sold off at the deadline but then upset San Jose, and finally the Hawks were very young in their first ever playoff appearance for all those players.

Or the 2008 team that only had to deal with an average Predators team, an overachieving, overmatched, and flu-ridden Avalanche, and the cinderella Dallas Stars, who have not been to the playoffs since?

How did any of these teams have a more difficult road to the final than the 2010 Blackhawks? They beat the 2nd, 4th, and 10th overall teams in the NHL to come out of the west. Only LA's road to the final (1st, 3rd, 11th) is comparable, but of course being the 8th seed would necessitate tough matchups.

Kyle McMahon is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 06:27 PM
  #330
AlowlyOilersfan
Comrade
 
AlowlyOilersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,956
vCash: 50
That Richards interview was brutal.

AlowlyOilersfan is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 06:29 PM
  #331
Frank the Tank
The Oiler Tankers
 
Frank the Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
The Hawks in the West faced Preds, Canucks, Sharks. 3 teams that have never accomplished anything. Teams that perennially take it on the shin in the playoffs.

Patsies.

Heres the deal. A lot of sport and competition is psychological. People used to lose fights to Mike Tyson long before they entered the ring. The match was over before it started because somebody got into somebodies head. I saw the Hawks doing this throughout that spring and teams reacting, teams getting upset, teams getting overwhelmed. Teams being selfish and stupid.

Nashville never had a chance against Chicago and pretty much as futile as Sens playing Pens. If you have no offense to speak of, its hard to win many games.

Nucks are the nucks, next.

Sharks for whatever odd reason could never seem to put it together in the playoffs. They actually had something going there but got totally frustrated, angry, and reactive against the Hawks. Hawks got in their heads.

The Hawks didn't face one team that spring that was adequately prepared or that played well executed system D and all zone play which Wings are doing now. Nashville heavily reliant on goaltending, and two of the best D on the planet, not on great system play.

The West is better now, stronger, tougher, and Hawks would've lost to any of LA, STL, SJ. Even that 2010 club would have a hell of a time trying to beat any of those current clubs in a 7game series.

Hawks rose up at a weak moment for the WC. They have stiffer competition now. Its not clear they can even handle Detroit.
The flaw with your argument is that you can use a few examples of how their opponents have failed in the past to dismiss the accomplishments of any team that won the Stanley Cup.

The 2011 Boston Bruins beat Montreal, Philadelphia, Tampa Bay, and Vancouver - 4 teams that never accomplished anything since 2004 (TB).

The 2012 LA Kings beat Vancouver, St. Louis, Phoenix, and New Jersey - 4 team that have not accomplished anything since 2003 (NJ).

So 7 teams:
Montreal
Philadelphia
Tampa Bay
Vancouver
St. Louis
Phoenix
New Jersey

We have already established that being Vancouver proves nothing and eliminating annual losers like St. Louis and Phoenix who have never accomplished anything is nothing to crow about.

Montreal
Philadelphia
Tampa Bay
New Jersey

Philadelphia was not considered to be a difficult test in 2010 so why would they be 2011?

Montreal
Tampa Bay
New Jersey

Montreal had one of those pop gun offenses that relied heavily on goaltending and defense similar to Nashville in 2010 so they are out.

Tampa Bay
New Jersey

That leaves Tampa Bay and New Jersey, two teams that were lower seeds that failed to make the playoffs the next season after. They obviously capitalized during weak years in the Eastern Conference playoffs as Cinderella stories.

Outside of the 2009 Pittsburgh Penguins eliminating the Red Wings, the defending Cup champs, in the Finals I think every team could be argued to have an easy path to winning the Stanley Cup.

Edit: I see Kyle McMahon is quicker on the gun than I am.

Frank the Tank is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 07:21 PM
  #332
402
#ualberta
 
402's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Egypt
Posts: 2,855
vCash: 500
So basically the avs are putting together an all star line up of staff

402 is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 07:27 PM
  #333
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,057
vCash: 500
Hey Kyle and Frank. Good arguments, hard to refute. I'm resigned that my take is more biased than anything (it is) and for some reason I just despise the Blackhawks and always have. Bruins as well.

All that said I'm old school and it just seems like teams these days can win the cup easier. Gone are the days when you would have to vanquish a great team to win the cup.

Like the Islanders had to, like the Oilers had to.

But I'll say this, is LA KINGS are a lot more reminiscent of a great team than any of the other recent winners have demonstrated. LA at least is putting on a post season in which they still look worthy. Beating the blues was no easy feat. Sharks are stiff opposition.

Hawks and Bruins had crash and burn playoffs subsequent to winning their respective cups.

I dunno, somehow I respect what LA did more. Probably due to recognizing the solid team system they play.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 07:44 PM
  #334
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Hey Kyle and Frank. Good arguments, hard to refute. I'm resigned that my take is more biased than anything (it is) and for some reason I just despise the Blackhawks and always have. Bruins as well.

All that said I'm old school and it just seems like teams these days can win the cup easier. Gone are the days when you would have to vanquish a great team to win the cup.

Like the Islanders had to, like the Oilers had to.

But I'll say this, is LA KINGS are a lot more reminiscent of a great team than any of the other recent winners have demonstrated. LA at least is putting on a post season in which they still look worthy. Beating the blues was no easy feat. Sharks are stiff opposition.

Hawks and Bruins had crash and burn playoffs subsequent to winning their respective cups.

I dunno, somehow I respect what LA did more. Probably due to recognizing the solid team system they play.
In the 80's you were more likely to have to vanquish one elite, long-remembered team, but you also usually had a couple of punching bags that had no hope of beating you as well. Today all 16 teams in the playoffs have a chance at reaching the final. Not so in the 80's, it was pretty much a race between Oilers, Flames, Isles, Flyers, Bruins and Habs. Nobody else was a threat.

So comes down to preference. Would you rather have to dethrone a dynasty, but have nothing else in your way, or play 4 series against good teams, all of which could beat you on any given day, but none of which were dynasty-cailber? Pros and cons to either situation.

Kyle McMahon is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 08:05 PM
  #335
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
In the 80's you were more likely to have to vanquish one elite, long-remembered team, but you also usually had a couple of punching bags that had no hope of beating you as well. Today all 16 teams in the playoffs have a chance at reaching the final. Not so in the 80's, it was pretty much a race between Oilers, Flames, Isles, Flyers, Bruins and Habs. Nobody else was a threat.

So comes down to preference. Would you rather have to dethrone a dynasty, but have nothing else in your way, or play 4 series against good teams, all of which could beat you on any given day, but none of which were dynasty-cailber? Pros and cons to either situation.
This isn't really accurate. Teams back then could dismantle you along the way as well. The series against the Flames were often tough. There were punching bags but there are now. Just that postcap its harder to differentiate the cream from the milk. That I think is the biggest story.

Kings are the most complete team I've ever seen postcap. jmo

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 09:05 PM
  #336
Senor Catface
Registered User
 
Senor Catface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Nepal
Posts: 6,245
vCash: 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
In the 80's you were more likely to have to vanquish one elite, long-remembered team, but you also usually had a couple of punching bags that had no hope of beating you as well. Today all 16 teams in the playoffs have a chance at reaching the final. Not so in the 80's, it was pretty much a race between Oilers, Flames, Isles, Flyers, Bruins and Habs. Nobody else was a threat.

So comes down to preference. Would you rather have to dethrone a dynasty, but have nothing else in your way, or play 4 series against good teams, all of which could beat you on any given day, but none of which were dynasty-cailber? Pros and cons to either situation.
Even back then that was hardly the case.

1984 was terrible for that. We beat 3 teams who had under 90 points. Winnipeg was a joke. Calgary wasn't the great team it came to be, and the North Stars were the best of a bad division.

Remember 1985? The conference final was against Chicago who had a whopping 83 points. The other two teams were hardly far off.

Every single year good teams beat bad ones.

It's sort of what happens.

Senor Catface is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 09:13 PM
  #337
Del Preston
1,000 Brown M&M's
 
Del Preston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,182
vCash: 50
It took 45 (!) shots but Seguin finally got a goal.

Del Preston is online now  
Old
05-23-2013, 09:15 PM
  #338
Senor Catface
Registered User
 
Senor Catface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Nepal
Posts: 6,245
vCash: 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Preston View Post
It took 45 (!) shots but Seguin finally got a goal.
If the Bruins had Hall they wouldn't have beat the Leafs.

(A real quote)

Senor Catface is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 09:40 PM
  #339
Frank the Tank
The Oiler Tankers
 
Frank the Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senor Catface View Post
If the Bruins had Hall they wouldn't have beat the Leafs.

(A real quote)
Yes, they would have finished first and beat the Islanders.

Frank the Tank is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 10:01 PM
  #340
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,057
vCash: 500
Wings are really playing the Hawks hard and winning the physical battle. Embarrassing for the hawks how they aren't matching effort.

Bickell should've been tossed from the game for punching the ref there trying to get a punch through to the Red Wing who the ref had pinned to the ice.

what a pos move by Bickell.

lol at Toews taking two lose it penalties in a row. No discipline.

Hawks unravelled in that period and looking like punks. Hope it continues.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 10:23 PM
  #341
The Perfect Human*
Bow Down to Lidas
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senor Catface View Post
If the Bruins had Hall they wouldn't have beat the Leafs.

(A real quote)

Who said this?

The Perfect Human* is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 10:41 PM
  #342
OilerTyler
Fire Lowe
 
OilerTyler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,123
vCash: 50
I can't believe Saad didn't get a penalty shot there

OilerTyler is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 10:47 PM
  #343
GreatKeith
Super Smashed Oilers
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 14,460
vCash: 50
Thank Goodness Detroit is changing conferences.

GreatKeith is online now  
Old
05-23-2013, 10:59 PM
  #344
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,057
vCash: 500
lol @ the Hawks.

Gettin schooled again.

They look like rank amateurs, not a team that ever won a cup.

Wheres Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith, Sharp, Bolland?

Looking down the bench for somebody else to get it done..

lmfao.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 11:02 PM
  #345
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OilerTyler View Post
I can't believe Saad didn't get a penalty shot there
Good non call. Let the players decide it on the ice. Hawks blew the **** out of their PP, were hopeless on it, and the remaining 4mins where they could barely gain the zone. Deserved to lose.

This Hawks team looks like a rookie laden Oiler club trying to figure out NZ pressure.

They don't have a friggen clue right now.

2 goals in 9periods from the vaunted Hawks scoring machine..

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 11:13 PM
  #346
The Perfect Human*
Bow Down to Lidas
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
lol @ the Hawks.

Gettin schooled again.

They look like rank amateurs, not a team that ever won a cup.

Wheres Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith, Sharp, Bolland?

Looking down the bench for somebody else to get it done..

lmfao.
I know we butt heads at times, but I'm loving your posts in this thread right now.

How is DET doing this with 5-6 new rookie/sophomores on this team? If the Oilesr added that many rookies onto their team in one season they'd finish 30th and chalk it up to a re-build.

Brunner, Nyquist, Andersson, Kindl, Dekeyser, Smith. This is ridiculous

The Perfect Human* is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 11:35 PM
  #347
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Perfect Human View Post
I know we butt heads at times, but I'm loving your posts in this thread right now.

How is DET doing this with 5-6 new rookie/sophomores on this team? If the Oilesr added that many rookies onto their team in one season they'd finish 30th and chalk it up to a re-build.

Brunner, Nyquist, Andersson, Kindl, Dekeyser, Smith. This is ridiculous
haha. Good times.

Nyquist was incredible tonight, Kindl with the goal, Rooks owning Hawks. Gotta love it.

The trouble with the Hawks, as I often stated, is everything came far too easy for Toews, Kane, Keith and company. They got fatheaded in a hurry and never really knew what it was like to have to dig deep, to respond to adversity. They never really had any.

Well, this last few seasons is adversity and Hawks doing nothing and looking like pretenders.

Nice system game Wings are playing. Very enjoyable.

Replacement is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 11:35 PM
  #348
Fuhryous
Registered User
 
Fuhryous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Medicine Hat, AB
Country: Hungary
Posts: 991
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Perfect Human View Post
I know we butt heads at times, but I'm loving your posts in this thread right now.

How is DET doing this with 5-6 new rookie/sophomores on this team? If the Oilesr added that many rookies onto their team in one season they'd finish 30th and chalk it up to a re-build.

Brunner, Nyquist, Andersson, Kindl, Dekeyser, Smith. This is ridiculous
Jimmy Howard is my guess. I didn't see much of the game, but it looks like he stood on his head again tonight. He's been earning every dollar of that big extension so far this postseason.

Fuhryous is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 11:39 PM
  #349
OilerTyler
Fire Lowe
 
OilerTyler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,123
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Good non call. Let the players decide it on the ice. Hawks blew the **** out of their PP, were hopeless on it, and the remaining 4mins where they could barely gain the zone. Deserved to lose.

This Hawks team looks like a rookie laden Oiler club trying to figure out NZ pressure.

They don't have a friggen clue right now.

2 goals in 9periods from the vaunted Hawks scoring machine..
That was clearly a penalty shot.

Letting the players on the ice decide the game is fine but the refs clearly aren't doing that when they allow Detroit to take a hard earned breakaway away from Saad and fail to give it back to him in the form of a penalty shot. In this case the refs actually affected the game more than they would've had they made the proper call.

The frustration from that miscall probably played a part in the crappy power play that followed.

OilerTyler is offline  
Old
05-23-2013, 11:39 PM
  #350
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuhryous View Post
Jimmy Howard is my guess. I didn't see much of the game, but it looks like he stood on his head again tonight. He's been earning every dollar of that big extension so far this postseason.
You should watch the game. Wings had incredible scoring chances in the game on the counter as Hawks pressed, got sloppy, and had complete breakdowns.

It was amazing if anything that Wings didn't build on the lead. I would give the edge to the Wings on serious scoring chances.

Replacement 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 05:56 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.