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

Edmonton Oilers: Wait and See at 2C

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-02-2014, 02:36 PM
  #76
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OiledUp View Post
The ageist thing was obviously tounge in cheek but I do believe NHL teams tend to give up on players too early. Athletes develop well into their 30s and at a different pace for each individual. And we as fans tend to have a certain bias against guys who find their groove later, youngsters usually starts at a position where everything good they do is embraced and everything bad is disregarded. Eventually the honey moon ends and there's a more honest approach. With guys who come in later it's instead a much more questioning attitude from the get go where we look for reasons the player has played at a lower level for so long.
Not saying you're more biased than anyone else, you're sceptical towards most players , it's just a general thought.
I actually give more latitude to late developers that have overcome something like a huge growth spurt that caused them to be gangly and awkward and that it takes awhile to adjust to new body dimensions. Or guys that are just bigger in general that eventually develop the power to be able to propel a large body.

For a small player its harder to see why the development took so long. Only thing I can think of is the player didn't work hard enough to be their best earlier. Am I missing something? I'm being sincere with that and don't see another explanation. Maybe its OK somebody decides to try to suddenly bring their best at mid 20's. You can find some undrafted value in that. But to me it also indicates a player that didn't have the same focus and desire as other young players that are highly touted.
Developmentally its certainly a crapshoot to try to hit the bigs several years later than the vast majority of players do. Because you miss out on years of playing hockey at the highest level and its a real steep incline to just resemble an NHLer. ftr in cases of severe injury I feel the same way. If a player missed a year to a year and a half through injury imo they are rarely the same after and the secondary reason being is that its hard to go an appreciable time away from playing hockey at the highest level. A steep learning curve for any player. Even the most talented.

Replacement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2014, 02:47 PM
  #77
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booya42 View Post
Why did it take Martin St Louis so long? How about those Sedin twins? Every player's progression is different, isn't it?
MSL is the outlier everybody mentions. The one instance in thousands where such a thing works. Lets not rewrite history either. NHL clubs were offering MSL NHL contracts as early as 1996 and while Martin was age 21. He was a hot hot known talent. He decided to remain in college. Please show where NHL teams offered Arco NHL contracts at age 21 for the comparison to be valid.

In the Sedins case my own opinion is it took several years for them to get even remotely comfortable with the physical reality of playing NHL hockey. These guys never even got there tbh as they were always deterred during playoffs. Bring the consistent hitting and physical play and the Sedins tend to disappear.

Sure one can say everybodies progression is different but that's a copout to the obvious.

Is the student that excelled and that advanced grades and that graduated high school at age 15 more intelligent than one that failed grades and graduated at say age 19? I'd say obviously.

The player that gets to the highest rung of hockey at the earliest age was obviously a better player. Obvious too that Gagner was a better player than Arco any of his hockey years ever except according to some last season.

Would I somehow conclude from that that Arco is better? That Arcos peak is higher than Gagners? Of course I wouldn't.


Last edited by Replacement: 08-02-2014 at 02:53 PM.
Replacement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2014, 04:45 PM
  #78
Dorian2
Positional Bias.
 
Dorian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,792
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Really to do this I require some time watching the player now that Gagner is gone. Bias? We all have em.

My concern for the org is really how they devalue their own players that are even remotely good and get rid of them eventually. To wit players like Horc, hemmer, Gagner, Gilbert. Next undoubtedly Petry. This org does this instead of supplanting reasonable players with suitable supporting players.

I'm not comforted either that Arco will not only have to play out of position but he'll likely have to do it with some players that haven't even been playing here either. I guess its hoped that kind of reload will be a freshstart ignition. I think of it more as continued chaos and players looking unorganized not knowing each other and playing for a club with wonky systems.

That's fair. And I agree with much you have said. The Oilers really seem to have an issue with finding the proper pieces for the talent they have. That includes past players like Hemmer, Gags etc.

They haven't used proper players in key positions for years now. I hope MacT changes that trend. It seems as though he's started though. Just gotsta find that elusive 2C at some point.


Last edited by Dorian2: 08-02-2014 at 05:00 PM.
Dorian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2014, 03:17 AM
  #79
OiledUp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
I actually give more latitude to late developers that have overcome something like a huge growth spurt that caused them to be gangly and awkward and that it takes awhile to adjust to new body dimensions. Or guys that are just bigger in general that eventually develop the power to be able to propel a large body.

For a small player its harder to see why the development took so long. Only thing I can think of is the player didn't work hard enough to be their best earlier. Am I missing something? I'm being sincere with that and don't see another explanation. Maybe its OK somebody decides to try to suddenly bring their best at mid 20's. You can find some undrafted value in that. But to me it also indicates a player that didn't have the same focus and desire as other young players that are highly touted.
Developmentally its certainly a crapshoot to try to hit the bigs several years later than the vast majority of players do. Because you miss out on years of playing hockey at the highest level and its a real steep incline to just resemble an NHLer. ftr in cases of severe injury I feel the same way. If a player missed a year to a year and a half through injury imo they are rarely the same after and the secondary reason being is that its hard to go an appreciable time away from playing hockey at the highest level. A steep learning curve for any player. Even the most talented.
I think that's a bit simplistic. There's a lot of reasons why someone goes undrafted and/or develops late. I don't think it's that hard to find reasons why the development of a smaller player might take longer. For a guy with smaller statue building sufficient strength to withstand pro hockey may take longer. If on top of being small you're a late developer you may very well be 5'5 and 130 lbs when NHL scouts start to drop by. It'll take a lot to get picked up. That makes it less likely to get the best coaching and also the player probably feels a pro career is a distant dream which likely slows down development compared to a guy who heads into his first NHL rookie camp at 18.

Look at Arcobello he's a tiny guy who played at a US high school, not exactly a situation that screams future pro career, he went to Yale so one could guess he planned for a future without hockey, by his 3rd year in college his production suddenly jumps up, maybe he started to catch up physically I don't know, I do know that by 21-23 years most maturity differences are levelled, anyway by his 3rd year in college he starts putting up numbers that suggest he actually has a pro career, it's not out of the question that this is the first time he actually starts to believe he may have a chance to go pro.
He finishes school, signs with the Oilers, starts in the ECHL, by his 1st year he's worked his way to the AHL, year 2 he's a full time AHL top sixer, year 3 his production bumps up near PPG and he he gets one game in the bigs where he looks completely overwhelmed, year 4 he sticks half the season with the Oilers playing at least decent for stretches while putting up #3 C numbers and when he is sent down he tears the AHL up and puts up almost 2 PPG before being sidelined with a minor injury.

That's a guy who's gotten better every season for six years, who's overcome size and playing junior at a lower level and carved out a pro career for himself, if not in the NHL certainly in the AHL or the KHL/SHL. He's at his toughest step so far and it's fairly likely he's reached his maximum but I'd much rather bet on him taking that last step and providing a solid option going forward than on guys on the decline like Derek Roy et al being capable to keep up.

OiledUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2014, 03:04 PM
  #80
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OiledUp View Post
I think that's a bit simplistic. There's a lot of reasons why someone goes undrafted and/or develops late. I don't think it's that hard to find reasons why the development of a smaller player might take longer. For a guy with smaller statue building sufficient strength to withstand pro hockey may take longer. If on top of being small you're a late developer you may very well be 5'5 and 130 lbs when NHL scouts start to drop by. It'll take a lot to get picked up. That makes it less likely to get the best coaching and also the player probably feels a pro career is a distant dream which likely slows down development compared to a guy who heads into his first NHL rookie camp at 18.
I don't see Arco as a player that withstands NHL hockey. I see him play 10 games then look exhausted and spent. I don't think the guy can bring the consistency at this level of hockey. Small guys have to work a lot harder and NHL hockey, especially big minutes playing tough opponents takes a lot out of a guy like Arco. I already saw that last year and pointed it out in games. Lots of people here noted it.

Quote:
Look at Arcobello he's a tiny guy who played at a US high school, not exactly a situation that screams future pro career, he went to Yale so one could guess he planned for a future without hockey, by his 3rd year in college his production suddenly jumps up, maybe he started to catch up physically I don't know, I do know that by 21-23 years most maturity differences are levelled, anyway by his 3rd year in college he starts putting up numbers that suggest he actually has a pro career, it's not out of the question that this is the first time he actually starts to believe he may have a chance to go pro.
I appreciate a good narrative as many as I spin out. A lot of college players still fancy the idea of parlaying it into a contract somewhere in the world and for smallish players preferably Europe. I'd be fine if Arco heads there sooner rather than later.

Quote:
He finishes school, signs with the Oilers, starts in the ECHL, by his 1st year he's worked his way to the AHL, year 2 he's a full time AHL top sixer, year 3 his production bumps up near PPG and he he gets one game in the bigs where he looks completely overwhelmed, year 4 he sticks half the season with the Oilers playing at least decent for stretches while putting up #3 C numbers and when he is sent down he tears the AHL up and puts up almost 2 PPG before being sidelined with a minor injury.

That's a guy who's gotten better every season for six years, who's overcome size and playing junior at a lower level and carved out a pro career for himself, if not in the NHL certainly in the AHL or the KHL/SHL. He's at his toughest step so far and it's fairly likely he's reached his maximum but I'd much rather bet on him taking that last step and providing a solid option going forward than on guys on the decline like Derek Roy et al being capable to keep up.
Again this is one narrative. But not accurate either. In terms of production Arco moved up to AHL and landed at pretty much ppg production. He actually then had an appreciable fallback year before going back to near ppg in 12-13. Last season was the first year in the pros where something different was noted. But I always note Arco plays best when he's well rested, has had a long break or long stint of less minutes.

In the NHL you need a player that can hack regular minutes regular games at this level. I don't think Arco has that. Wouldn't surprise me if he bursts out of the gate again and then fizzles out.

Replacement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2014, 04:14 PM
  #81
Aerchon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
I don't see Arco as a player that withstands NHL hockey. I see him play 10 games then look exhausted and spent. I don't think the guy can bring the consistency at this level of hockey. Small guys have to work a lot harder and NHL hockey, especially big minutes playing tough opponents takes a lot out of a guy like Arco. I already saw that last year and pointed it out in games. Lots of people here noted it.

I appreciate a good narrative as many as I spin out. A lot of college players still fancy the idea of parlaying it into a contract somewhere in the world and for smallish players preferably Europe. I'd be fine if Arco heads there sooner rather than later.

Again this is one narrative. But not accurate either. In terms of production Arco moved up to AHL and landed at pretty much ppg production. He actually then had an appreciable fallback year before going back to near ppg in 12-13. Last season was the first year in the pros where something different was noted. But I always note Arco plays best when he's well rested, has had a long break or long stint of less minutes.

In the NHL you need a player that can hack regular minutes regular games at this level. I don't think Arco has that. Wouldn't surprise me if he bursts out of the gate again and then fizzles out.
This is the strangest narrative I may have ever seen.

Arcobello’s points and play has done nothing but increase practically exponentially. That one season with a "dip " is pretty loose to base such a flimsy opinion.

Also Arco had a rib injury, something I've had, and at no point even dealing with that injury did I ever think he got worn out. His play only dropped when playing with Gazdic. This is all well documented. Again not sure where you are getting your stuff from.

Aerchon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 03:04 AM
  #82
Bergeron47
Registered User
 
Bergeron47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,509
vCash: 966
I think we're just too far into this to still be experimenting with unproven players in key positions. Trying out Arcobello for the year at 2C was a move that could have been tried 2 seasons ago. Every year we do this, and most of the time its a failure.

We're so used to this that we've lowered our expectations of having a full roster of proven players in proven positions. It's enough to have 2 unproven goalies and no proven top-pairing d-man, but enough is enough. We wouldn't be spoiled if acquired a 2C like Berglund, we'd be barely competitive.
Look over at a team that barely got into the playoffs last year, Dallas. They have a #1C, a newly acquired #2C (that's currently better than our #1C mind you), a top pairing d-man in Goligoski, a great goalie in Lehtonen, a really good #3C in Eakin (who would be our #2C), and solid depth. And that's an 8th place team in the West.

We should be pissed if Arco starts on our 2nd line, stop trying to justifing why he could succeed and start demanding a friggin number 2 center.

Bergeron47 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 03:32 AM
  #83
Philly85
Raps'
 
Philly85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergeron47 View Post
I think we're just too far into this to still be experimenting with unproven players in key positions. Trying out Arcobello for the year at 2C was a move that could have been tried 2 seasons ago. Every year we do this, and most of the time its a failure.

We're so used to this that we've lowered our expectations of having a full roster of proven players in proven positions. It's enough to have 2 unproven goalies and no proven top-pairing d-man, but enough is enough. We wouldn't be spoiled if acquired a 2C like Berglund, we'd be barely competitive.
Look over at a team that barely got into the playoffs last year, Dallas. They have a #1C, a newly acquired #2C (that's currently better than our #1C mind you), a top pairing d-man in Goligoski, a great goalie in Lehtonen, a really good #3C in Eakin (who would be our #2C), and solid depth. And that's an 8th place team in the West.

We should be pissed if Arco starts on our 2nd line, stop trying to justifing why he could succeed and start demanding a friggin number 2 center.
yes, end of story

Philly85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 03:46 AM
  #84
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergeron47 View Post
I think we're just too far into this to still be experimenting with unproven players in key positions. Trying out Arcobello for the year at 2C was a move that could have been tried 2 seasons ago. Every year we do this, and most of the time its a failure.

We're so used to this that we've lowered our expectations of having a full roster of proven players in proven positions. It's enough to have 2 unproven goalies and no proven top-pairing d-man, but enough is enough. We wouldn't be spoiled if acquired a 2C like Berglund, we'd be barely competitive.
Look over at a team that barely got into the playoffs last year, Dallas. They have a #1C, a newly acquired #2C (that's currently better than our #1C mind you), a top pairing d-man in Goligoski, a great goalie in Lehtonen, a really good #3C in Eakin (who would be our #2C), and solid depth. And that's an 8th place team in the West.

We should be pissed if Arco starts on our 2nd line, stop trying to justifing why he could succeed and start demanding a friggin number 2 center.
If god posted on hfboards..

Great post.

Replacement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 05:25 AM
  #85
OiledUp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
I don't see Arco as a player that withstands NHL hockey. I see him play 10 games then look exhausted and spent. I don't think the guy can bring the consistency at this level of hockey. Small guys have to work a lot harder and NHL hockey, especially big minutes playing tough opponents takes a lot out of a guy like Arco. I already saw that last year and pointed it out in games. Lots of people here noted it.

I appreciate a good narrative as many as I spin out. A lot of college players still fancy the idea of parlaying it into a contract somewhere in the world and for smallish players preferably Europe. I'd be fine if Arco heads there sooner rather than later.

Again this is one narrative. But not accurate either. In terms of production Arco moved up to AHL and landed at pretty much ppg production. He actually then had an appreciable fallback year before going back to near ppg in 12-13. Last season was the first year in the pros where something different was noted. But I always note Arco plays best when he's well rested, has had a long break or long stint of less minutes.

In the NHL you need a player that can hack regular minutes regular games at this level. I don't think Arco has that. Wouldn't surprise me if he bursts out of the gate again and then fizzles out.
Obviously my little story was purely speculative, I have no clue what Arcobellos focus and dreams were, just an overly wordy way to point out that it's not as easy as the only reason someone being a late bloomer is due to a late growth spurt.

He's finished all his AHL seasons better than he's started them, he's been great in the playoffs, so him fizzling out is based on his one season of NHL hockey and you could reason there were other factors to him gettnig worse as the year passed. Sure it may be that he can't cut it in the tougher NHL, but as of now that's just another narrative...

Why is it not accurate to say he's gotten better each year? First season he couldn't stick in the AHL, next year he could, his AHL production over the 20 or so game stint was better in terms of PPG the first year, but that's a smaller sample size and if you looked at his game he clearly improved year 2.

He's certainly a longshot. But so would the has been options out there be as well. As I said I'd rather have a guy I knew would be a great #2, hell, I'd rather have a more certain #1C option than RNH who still has a ton to prove at the position. Problem is I don't see to many alternatives as it stands and instead of throwing money and valuable assets on players who might no cut it either I'd rather give what we got a dozen games to see if they can stay above the water before hitting the panic button.


Last edited by OiledUp: 08-04-2014 at 06:25 AM.
OiledUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 06:09 AM
  #86
OiledUp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergeron47 View Post
I think we're just too far into this to still be experimenting with unproven players in key positions. Trying out Arcobello for the year at 2C was a move that could have been tried 2 seasons ago. Every year we do this, and most of the time its a failure.

We're so used to this that we've lowered our expectations of having a full roster of proven players in proven positions. It's enough to have 2 unproven goalies and no proven top-pairing d-man, but enough is enough. We wouldn't be spoiled if acquired a 2C like Berglund, we'd be barely competitive.
Look over at a team that barely got into the playoffs last year, Dallas. They have a #1C, a newly acquired #2C (that's currently better than our #1C mind you), a top pairing d-man in Goligoski, a great goalie in Lehtonen, a really good #3C in Eakin (who would be our #2C), and solid depth. And that's an 8th place team in the West.

We should be pissed if Arco starts on our 2nd line, stop trying to justifing why he could succeed and start demanding a friggin number 2 center.
I'm not saying Arco(or Lander) is a brilliant option and I'd obiouvsly rather have a proven commodity but as things stands I don't see that many options out there without giving up assets that might hurt us going forward. To me the point of pro sports is to win the whole damn thing, no point in being just decent, I'd rather aim for being the best later than semi ok now. If the chance to get a good 2C presents itself I'm all for it but right now I don't see much of value.

OiledUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 06:59 AM
  #87
Bergeron47
Registered User
 
Bergeron47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,509
vCash: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by OiledUp View Post
I'm not saying Arco(or Lander) is a brilliant option and I'd obiouvsly rather have a proven commodity but as things stands I don't see that many options out there without giving up assets that might hurt us going forward. To me the point of pro sports is to win the whole damn thing, no point in being just decent, I'd rather aim for being the best later than semi ok now. If the chance to get a good 2C presents itself I'm all for it but right now I don't see much of value.
So what's your plan then? It's 5-7 years into our rebuild and we only just drafted a guy that might fill that role. So do you want to wait 3 more years to see if he can? What if he can't? Then what?
Every other team in our conference finds a way to get a second line center. It's not like finding a unicorn, this shouldn't be so hard.

Bergeron47 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 08:26 AM
  #88
OiledUp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergeron47 View Post
So what's your plan then? It's 5-7 years into our rebuild and we only just drafted a guy that might fill that role. So do you want to wait 3 more years to see if he can? What if he can't? Then what?
Every other team in our conference finds a way to get a second line center. It's not like finding a unicorn, this shouldn't be so hard.
Hey, I would love for this team to find a good #2C but I don't see too many options around. Our trading chips are either at a low value or are more valuable to us than what other clubs are likely prepared to pay. The free agents available this summer were either never going to sign here, Spezza, Statsny always were pipe dreams, or just not very good. The only option I actually liked was Legwand. Instead of paying someone new who's not so good I'd rather play the not so good we already have until a good option turns up.
I've mentioned earlier in the thread that I think some options might turn up by training camp or a few games into the season, but I seriously doubt they're available right now.

And yeah the team has been terribly run for years. But I don't see the point in thinking about what should have been done 1,2 or 5 years ago to prevent this mess in the first place. I'd rather look at the chips as they are stacked now and speculate what can be done going forward. Not that my opinion matters at all but I think it's more fun for me that way, though that's just me.

Btw I'd be all for guys like Berglund or Sutter et al for the right price, but I wouldn't want to overpay, because while I think they could possibly raise their game, neither of those guys have proven they can play as #2s so they are gambles as well. Same thing with a guy like Kruger, he's shown some ability suggesting he could move up the line up, but I'd be weary selling the farm to get him if i turns out he's a bottom sixer for life.

OiledUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 11:02 AM
  #89
Up the Irons
Registered User
 
Up the Irons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,176
vCash: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergeron47 View Post
I think we're just too far into this to still be experimenting with unproven players in key positions. Trying out Arcobello for the year at 2C was a move that could have been tried 2 seasons ago. Every year we do this, and most of the time its a failure.

We're so used to this that we've lowered our expectations of having a full roster of proven players in proven positions. It's enough to have 2 unproven goalies and no proven top-pairing d-man, but enough is enough. We wouldn't be spoiled if acquired a 2C like Berglund, we'd be barely competitive.
Look over at a team that barely got into the playoffs last year, Dallas. They have a #1C, a newly acquired #2C (that's currently better than our #1C mind you), a top pairing d-man in Goligoski, a great goalie in Lehtonen, a really good #3C in Eakin (who would be our #2C), and solid depth. And that's an 8th place team in the West.

We should be pissed if Arco starts on our 2nd line, stop trying to justifing why he could succeed and start demanding a friggin number 2 center.
That sums it up. Great post.
They will hope for the best with Arco, Draisaitl and Lander. If it doesn't work out, they will write off the season and draft high.

Up the Irons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 12:39 PM
  #90
Replacement
Now 11.5% more Zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OiledUp View Post
I'm not saying Arco(or Lander) is a brilliant option and I'd obiouvsly rather have a proven commodity but as things stands I don't see that many options out there without giving up assets that might hurt us going forward. To me the point of pro sports is to win the whole damn thing, no point in being just decent, I'd rather aim for being the best later than semi ok now. If the chance to get a good 2C presents itself I'm all for it but right now I don't see much of value.
The whole point made is that other teams that are already obviously better than us find options, good options, because they are astute orgs constantly looking to REALLY improve.

The irony being Dallas particularly improved due to our orgs lack of having any clue how to properly use and support players.

Replacement is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 12:48 PM
  #91
Aerchon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergeron47 View Post
I think we're just too far into this to still be experimenting with unproven players in key positions. Trying out Arcobello for the year at 2C was a move that could have been tried 2 seasons ago. Every year we do this, and most of the time its a failure.

We're so used to this that we've lowered our expectations of having a full roster of proven players in proven positions. It's enough to have 2 unproven goalies and no proven top-pairing d-man, but enough is enough. We wouldn't be spoiled if acquired a 2C like Berglund, we'd be barely competitive.
Look over at a team that barely got into the playoffs last year, Dallas. They have a #1C, a newly acquired #2C (that's currently better than our #1C mind you), a top pairing d-man in Goligoski, a great goalie in Lehtonen, a really good #3C in Eakin (who would be our #2C), and solid depth. And that's an 8th place team in the West.

We should be pissed if Arco starts on our 2nd line, stop trying to justifing why he could succeed and start demanding a friggin number 2 center.
Sigh.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have to keep reminding myself of that. This is a well written post that misses so much to make its point...

Where do established hockey players come from? Anywhere but Edmonton? Is your only strategy to gather players through FA from other organizations? Kinda expensive and unrealistic.

How do other teams manage to get a full roster of proven players?... Oh wait they don't. They use coaching and development from within to supplement as many "proven" NHL players as they can get.

Boston ran with 4 of their defense last season having less than 100 NHL games. None of them proven in any way shape or form. They won the Eastern Conference.

I get it that Edmonton's track record for this kind of stuff is terrible but having 3... THREE unproven forwards spots open for training camp is at least along the league average. Very standard operating procedures for most NHL teams. All our defense are proven except maybe Marincin who was technically our best D-man last year. Both Scrivens and Fasthe have been starters for other NHL clubs, not "proven" perhaps but both extremely promissing.

There is doom and gloom you can drum up in spades about this club but these posts here are either intentionally or unintentionally making it much worse than it is.

Most teams in the NHL would give Arco a legit crack at the #2 center spot with his success to date. 2 ppg AHL players that manage a 50% success rate in the dot their first year in the NHL do not grow on trees. Lander needs a chance, Leon should get one, Pitlick needs a chance, Joensuu is still in the organization, Gazdic shouldn't have a permanent roster spot based off his play. We have a lot of players fighting for a few spots.

It has taken waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer than it should have, and there is still much room for improvement. BUT. We finally have a roster that is NHL worthy. Will it work? Probably not but IMO that has much more to do with the coach than the roster.

My logic is simple. Krueger is not a great coach but he did considerably better, with a worse roster, against much tougher opposition. We get a NHL proven coach and our weakness at center shouldn't keep us down so much.

Our center is weaker than we all would like but we do have some intriguing players that need to be given the chance now to succeed. If they don't I hope Mac T has a plan other than tanking because I don't think anyone can handle that anymore. Not the fans, the management, the players, hell even other organizations and the NHL itself is getting sick of us sucking an tanking.

Aerchon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 01:05 PM
  #92
CupofOil
Bob The Builder
 
CupofOil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 5-14-6-1
Country: United States
Posts: 15,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerchon View Post
Sigh.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have to keep reminding myself of that. This is a well written post that misses so much to make its point...

Where do established hockey players come from? Anywhere but Edmonton? Is your only strategy to gather players through FA from other organizations? Kinda expensive and unrealistic.

How do other teams manage to get a full roster of proven players?... Oh wait they don't. They use coaching and development from within to supplement as many "proven" NHL players as they can get.

Boston ran with 4 of their defense last season having less than 100 NHL games. None of them proven in any way shape or form. They won the Eastern Conference.

I get it that Edmonton's track record for this kind of stuff is terrible but having 3... THREE unproven forwards spots open for training camp is at least along the league average. Very standard operating procedures for most NHL teams. All our defense are proven except maybe Marincin who was technically our best D-man last year. Both Scrivens and Fasthe have been starters for other NHL clubs, not "proven" perhaps but both extremely promissing.

There is doom and gloom you can drum up in spades about this club but these posts here are either intentionally or unintentionally making it much worse than it is.

Most teams in the NHL would give Arco a legit crack at the #2 center spot with his success to date. 2 ppg AHL players that manage a 50% success rate in the dot their first year in the NHL do not grow on trees. Lander needs a chance, Leon should get one, Pitlick needs a chance, Joensuu is still in the organization, Gazdic shouldn't have a permanent roster spot based off his play. We have a lot of players fighting for a few spots.

It has taken waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer than it should have, and there is still much room for improvement. BUT. We finally have a roster that is NHL worthy. Will it work? Probably not but IMO that has much more to do with the coach than the roster.

My logic is simple. Krueger is not a great coach but he did considerably better, with a worse roster, against much tougher opposition. We get a NHL proven coach and our weakness at center shouldn't keep us down so much.

Our center is weaker than we all would like but we do have some intriguing players that need to be given the chance now to succeed. If they don't I hope Mac T has a plan other than tanking because I don't think anyone can handle that anymore. Not the fans, the management, the players, hell even other organizations and the NHL itself is getting sick of us sucking an tanking.
The Boston example is a poor one because they already had strength down the middle, 2 top pairing Dman (Chara and Seidenberg) and another top 4 Dman in Boychuk along with elite goaltending so they could afford to line up 3 unproven defensemen because the lineup was well insulated.

What MacT did was take unproven center depth last season and has made it even more unproven which i didn't think was possible. He has had 2 full offseasons to fix this and has yet to do so and in fact, has made the position even weaker if anything.
When you have no top pairing defensemen, unproven goaltending and 1 (really one only ONE) center that has proven that he can tread water against tough competition (RNH is still learning) and he's the teams' 4th line center in all likelihood, you simply can't afford to go into the season with a big maybe at #2C and on top of that have a rookie with skating and defensive issues at #3C. The roster simply isn't nearly good enough to offset a gaping hole at center.

MacT is basically acknowledging that this is YET ANOTHER development year if he plans on icing Arco and Draisaitl as the lead candidates for #2 and #3C.
On top of that, there is absolutely no competition that will force them to earn their spots. I can't think of one other NHL organization that isn't in the beginning of a rebuild that would go into the season with this many question marks at center especially when there are question marks everywhere else pretty much. This is supposed to be Year 4? 5? of the rebuild and the Oilers are still auditioning rookies and career AHLers for important positions.

It's madness that MacT would let it come to this especially after he saw what the lack of center depth did to the team last season. Inexplicable really.
Imagine of any injuries happen? Imagine if RNH or Gordon get injured? What's the Plan B if that happened? Arco-Draisaitl-Lander-Yakimov? May God Help Us!!!!

CupofOil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 03:01 PM
  #93
OiledUp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
The whole point made is that other teams that are already obviously better than us find options, good options, because they are astute orgs constantly looking to REALLY improve.

The irony being Dallas particularly improved due to our orgs lack of having any clue how to properly use and support players.
Still looking for someone presenting a valid #2C option going into this season. We're not a very interesting free agent spot. And we have very few useful trading chips. They are either of very little value or they're at a stage where you're selling low.
One reason this team is in such a bad state is trading at a low value thus losing players for next to nothing. Gagner is the latest example of a guy who was traded when his value was at it's lowest.

The only players on our roster that are actual trading options and hold decent value are Eberle, Perron and Petry. But trading Eberle without knowing if Yak can bounce back from his sophomore slump would be risky, I'd consider it but it better be a good deal. Perron is pretty much the same situation and he also adds an element this team really lack and I don't think he's as highly valud around the league as we might think. Trading Petry might be an option if two out of Marincin, Klefbom and Nurse can come in looking beastly when the season starts, but before that if is erased trading Petry would be creating a new hole while trying to fill another. Petrys trading value as a pending UFA is also questionable and imo it was pretty stupid to only sign him for a year.

Dallas made some nice moves, but they also had a guy like Louie Eriksson to trade away for an elite talent who was caught in a numbers game. We don't. And once they start becoming an up and coming team it's easier to get a guy like Spezza in free agency.

OiledUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 03:14 PM
  #94
oilz89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerchon View Post
This is the strangest narrative I may have ever seen.

Arcobello’s points and play has done nothing but increase practically exponentially. That one season with a "dip " is pretty loose to base such a flimsy opinion.

Also Arco had a rib injury, something I've had, and at no point even dealing with that injury did I ever think he got worn out. His play only dropped when playing with Gazdic. This is all well documented. Again not sure where you are getting your stuff from.
Arco is NOT a second line centre. Never will be imo. Get it through your head. More then half of the guys points were lucky assists, mostly when he was playing with Hall. Stop riding the guy. Leon would get the spot 100% if it was a choice between him or Arco for me. Why do you like the guy so much? He gets random, lucky assists and then when he starts to struggle he gets moved down. When did he ever prove he's a legit top six centre?

oilz89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 03:36 PM
  #95
Bergeron47
Registered User
 
Bergeron47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,509
vCash: 966
^ Agree with CupofOil

It's not about the amount of positions open for unproven players, it's the importance of said positions. I couldn't care less if we had a bottom pairing D, a bottom 6 forward or 2, heck even a top 6 winger to fill.

Not only that, but I don't think citing an Eastern conference team is all that relevant to our situation or expectations.
We're on a learning curve, and the Western Conference is our school.
1. Getzlaf Kesler
2. Duchene Mackinnon
3. Backes Stasty
4. Thornton Couture
5. Toews Richards
6. Kopitar Carter
7. Koivu Granlund
8. Seguin Spezza

This is the new standard to get into the playoffs in the West. As a poster earlier pointed, the teams in the West have gotten stronger at the center position, where as we're getting weaker.

I think we as fans give each other too much credit, we all like to put our GM hats and see if we can figure it out. Thing is, we're not professional NHL GMs, and we're not getting paid to be. (Oiledup) I don't know how to fix this situation, not is it my responsibility. Nowhere in my previous post did I say it can only be fixed via free agency. Yes, we have been terrible, and that makes it harder to acquire talent. But LA figured it out, Chicago figured it out, St. Louis figured it out, Minnesota and Dallas figured it out and more recently Colorado.

These were all organizations that were bottom dwellers as well, and I don't think it took them this long to figure it out.


Last edited by Bergeron47: 08-04-2014 at 03:49 PM.
Bergeron47 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 03:52 PM
  #96
Philly85
Raps'
 
Philly85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OiledUp View Post
Still looking for someone presenting a valid #2C option going into this season. We're not a very interesting free agent spot. And we have very few useful trading chips. They are either of very little value or they're at a stage where you're selling low.
One reason this team is in such a bad state is trading at a low value thus losing players for next to nothing. Gagner is the latest example of a guy who was traded when his value was at it's lowest.

The only players on our roster that are actual trading options and hold decent value are Eberle, Perron and Petry. But trading Eberle without knowing if Yak can bounce back from his sophomore slump would be risky, I'd consider it but it better be a good deal. Perron is pretty much the same situation and he also adds an element this team really lack and I don't think he's as highly valud around the league as we might think. Trading Petry might be an option if two out of Marincin, Klefbom and Nurse can come in looking beastly when the season starts, but before that if is erased trading Petry would be creating a new hole while trying to fill another. Petrys trading value as a pending UFA is also questionable and imo it was pretty stupid to only sign him for a year.

Dallas made some nice moves, but they also had a guy like Louie Eriksson to trade away for an elite talent who was caught in a numbers game. We don't. And once they start becoming an up and coming team it's easier to get a guy like Spezza in free agency.
if Yak shows any semblance of being able to supplant Eberle and live up to his draft status the Oil need to trade him.

look at these NHL depth charts:

http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/depth-charts/nhl.aspx

Edmonton's is laughably bad, maybe one team worse than them, that being Buffalo, and even then you could argue... the top end prospects aside from LD are not there at centre... Arcobello, Lander, Pitlick (who's been playing wing) Gordon, essentially three 4th line players/fringe NHL'ers. MacT traded away Gagner and managed to make their centre depth even worse in the process, amazing. Don't care how good their wingers are, this is a recipe for disaster. Another development year.

Philly85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 04:15 PM
  #97
Soundwave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 28,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philly85 View Post
if Yak shows any semblance of being able to supplant Eberle and live up to his draft status the Oil need to trade him.

look at these NHL depth charts:

http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/depth-charts/nhl.aspx

Edmonton's is laughably bad, maybe one team worse than them, that being Buffalo, and even then you could argue... the top end prospects aside from LD are not there at centre... Arcobello, Lander, Pitlick (who's been playing wing) Gordon, essentially three 4th line players/fringe NHL'ers. MacT traded away Gagner and managed to make their centre depth even worse in the process, amazing. Don't care how good their wingers are, this is a recipe for disaster. Another development year.
It's bad center depth for the time being, but long term the Oilers should be fine at center with RNH + Draisaitl.

The Oilers made due with less talent for like 15 years at 1/2C.

Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 04:39 PM
  #98
Ovechking
Registered User
 
Ovechking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,720
vCash: 732
If we're going to freak out and demand a #2C, we should be prepared to give up significant pieces to acquire one. I'm not against acquiring a guy like Thornton who would provide us 2-3 years of an elite #1C, and who can slide down the depth chart as he ages.

Ovechking is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 05:41 PM
  #99
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,828
vCash: 553
If we were located in Dallas, and not the second least desirable location in the NHL maybe we would attract players through UFA. Other than that...build from within.

Last year people ripped on me when i pointed out why we would finish in the bottom five again....predicted after the summer and again pointed it out and stood by my predictions after the preseason when everyonewas high on exhibition success.

This year we have far more depth and quality in the d, wing and goaltending positions.
This is the best full Oilers roster i have seen in seven years. It will also be the most competitive camp in that time.

Is it a playoff team? No. Can i live with the fact MacT has to bank on teams putting Centres on the trade block? Yes. I live in Edmonton and i know well the player poll and reality.

Has MacT proven he works hard on being involved and knowing whats available in the league? Yes.

I have more faith in MacT as a GM than i have had faith in a Oilers GM since Sather wouldnt give Ray Whitney a proper contract. Its been a long time since i saw a guy who seemed to work hard year long and evaluate his players well...

oilinblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2014, 05:44 PM
  #100
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,828
vCash: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovechking View Post
If we're going to freak out and demand a #2C, we should be prepared to give up significant pieces to acquire one. I'm not against acquiring a guy like Thornton who would provide us 2-3 years of an elite #1C, and who can slide down the depth chart as he ages.
Cs are more valuable than wingers. Expect Eberle, Klef and a 1 st going the other way for a Thornton.

oilinblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:14 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.