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

I Love This Team

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2003, 02:39 PM
  #26
HellsBells
Registered User
 
HellsBells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: PEI
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemsky01
I know there has been a ton of negative stuff about this team the last week but they have got to be the best team to watch in the league and those of us who follow them to see the show every night. and they do put on a show. Everyone has a thousand theories on why they are giving up so many goals, but I can give 99% of the reason. THEY ARE THE YOUNGEST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE!! Young players give up the puck, are inconistent, don't always battle hard everynight but I can guarantee I don't stop watching the games early.(which you can't say for those devils fans when there team goes up by a goal in the first period). This team, if kept together (and with a decent Comrie Return, will win the cup in 5 years and be dominant!! We got the best team to watch in the NHL, boys and girls, and I for one am loving every minute of it.

The Oilers are NOT the best team to watch. Obviously for Oilers fans they will be. I can name at least 10 teams that are much better to watch.

1. Avs
2. Wings
3. Blues
4. Canucks
5. Leafs
6. Sens
7. Bruins
8. Islanders
9. Flyers
10. Stars

That's off the top of my head. I watched the Oilers play the Flames twice this year and the Flames had them looking like a Junior hockey team. Really, the Flames !! The Oilers only look good when they play another team that doesn't care about defence. The Flames have proven that with good defence, the Oilers are not that good. How many shots in 2 games vs. the Flames. 30 or so...that's pretty exciting stuff.

HellsBells is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 02:45 PM
  #27
Hellström
Registered User
 
Hellström's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Iceland
Posts: 2,896
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Hellström
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
The Oilers are NOT the best team to watch. Obviously for Oilers fans they will be. I can name at least 10 teams that are much better to watch.

1. Avs
2. Wings
3. Blues
4. Canucks
5. Leafs
6. Sens
7. Bruins
8. Islanders
9. Flyers
10. Stars

That's off the top of my head. I watched the Oilers play the Flames twice this year and the Flames had them looking like a Junior hockey team. Really, the Flames !! The Oilers only look good when they play another team that doesn't care about defence. The Flames have proven that with good defence, the Oilers are not that good. How many shots in 2 games vs. the Flames. 30 or so...that's pretty exciting stuff.
For him, the Oilers are the best to watch.
End of discussion. His opinion, your opinion.

Hellström is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 02:49 PM
  #28
HellsBells
Registered User
 
HellsBells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: PEI
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigSimpson18
For him, the Oilers are the best to watch.
End of discussion. His opinion, your opinion.

That's all fine and dandy but he didn't say it was his opinion, he said the Oilers ARE one of the best teams to watch. So that is not an opinion, that is a statement. End of discussion !!

HellsBells is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 02:53 PM
  #29
Hellström
Registered User
 
Hellström's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Iceland
Posts: 2,896
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Hellström
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
That's all fine and dandy but he didn't say it was his opinion, he said the Oilers ARE one of the best teams to watch. So that is not an opinion, that is a statement. End of discussion !!
You´re saying, that this is a statement. I see it this way, that he stated his opinion as you stated your opinion.

You´re not right with your list, and he´s not right with his one, I´m not right with mine (just for me i´m right you for yours, etc.), cause everyone has a different list and you have to accept that (although you´d love to diss the Oilers) and there´s no point to argue like that - Flames/Oilers fan or not.

Hellström is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 02:58 PM
  #30
Belcriss
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
That's all fine and dandy but he didn't say it was his opinion, he said the Oilers ARE one of the best teams to watch. So that is not an opinion, that is a statement. End of discussion !!

How infantile. If you don't think that the Oilers aren't one of the most exciting teams to watch, then your in a minority, including around the league. Alot of teams love to play the Oilers, and not just cause were young, make mistakes etc. But simply cause were a skating team, and its gonna be wide open, lots of chances and a good game to play, and watch. No trapping, no bs clutch and grab all the bloody time. Yes, we get burned sometimes, and we lose badly sometimes, but, were always there, ready to play. If you don't like watching them, then don't watch them. As for Vancouver and that, yes, they are great to watch if your a fan of theirs. I am not, and I personally love watching the Oilers more than any other team. Thats my OPINION, and if you don't like it, then go to another board where you are a fan.

 
Old
11-12-2003, 03:04 PM
  #31
HellsBells
Registered User
 
HellsBells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: PEI
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belcriss
How infantile. If you don't think that the Oilers aren't one of the most exciting teams to watch, then your in a minority, including around the league. Alot of teams love to play the Oilers, and not just cause were young, make mistakes etc. But simply cause were a skating team, and its gonna be wide open, lots of chances and a good game to play, and watch. No trapping, no bs clutch and grab all the bloody time. Yes, we get burned sometimes, and we lose badly sometimes, but, were always there, ready to play. If you don't like watching them, then don't watch them. As for Vancouver and that, yes, they are great to watch if your a fan of theirs. I am not, and I personally love watching the Oilers more than any other team. Thats my OPINION, and if you don't like it, then go to another board where you are a fan.

Take it easy tiger !! I can post where I want thank you very much. I never said they were not a good team or they don't play an exciting brand of hockey, I am just saying they are only any good if the other team is playing the same way. They can hardly muster 15 shots against the Flames, because the Flames have very good D. Anybody is exciting when they disregard defence. I'd rather win 1-0 than lose 5-4. That is my opinion.

HellsBells is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 03:05 PM
  #32
windowlicker
Registered User
 
windowlicker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Murky Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
The Oilers are NOT the best team to watch. Obviously for Oilers fans they will be. I can name at least 10 teams that are much better to watch.

1. Avs
2. Wings
3. Blues
4. Canucks
5. Leafs
6. Sens
7. Bruins
8. Islanders
9. Flyers
10. Stars

That's off the top of my head. I watched the Oilers play the Flames twice this year and the Flames had them looking like a Junior hockey team. Really, the Flames !! The Oilers only look good when they play another team that doesn't care about defence. The Flames have proven that with good defence, the Oilers are not that good. How many shots in 2 games vs. the Flames. 30 or so...that's pretty exciting stuff.
well, IMO that list is insane. Blues? Leafs? Bruins? Islanders? FLYERSS??
Stars? When people in the hockey world with more than enough hockey know-how are questioned, (as IMO you dont seem to have),they always put the Oilers in the top.. lets say 6 of the more exciting teams to watch. Not best, but fun and exciting. I can be as un-biased as anyone on here, but when someone posts such a funny and inconsistent list , IMO, i have to reply.
You saw the Oilers play the Flamers twice? Well i saw the Oilers dominate the Red wings in the 3rd period of a 4-4 tie....... what does that say?

windowlicker is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 03:15 PM
  #33
HellsBells
Registered User
 
HellsBells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: PEI
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by windowlicker
Well i saw the Oilers dominate the Red wings in the 3rd period of a 4-4 tie....... what does that say?
It says the Wings were in a huge funk and blew a 2 goal lead. I also saw EDM blow a 3 goal lead in the 1st period against the BLUES !! Would that not make the Blues exciting going by your reasoning. The Flyers are a very exciting team to watch, they hit everything in sight, I like that kind of hockey, not pond hockey like the Oilers play. I like defence and goaltending as well which the Oilers don't have any. The Islanders are a very good team, I think you don't know much about hockey. I suppose you still call Edmonton "City of Champions" LOL LOL !!

Seriously, you can't say that I don't know my hockey because I find many teams more exciting than the Oilers. That is homerism at it's best. If the Oilers had decent D and goaltending they'd be more exciting because they would win games.

HellsBells is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 03:18 PM
  #34
Hellström
Registered User
 
Hellström's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Iceland
Posts: 2,896
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Hellström
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
I like that kind of hockey, not pond hockey like the Oilers play. I like defence and goaltending as well which the Oilers don't have any. ....
Back to the first point.
You´re critizing someone for loving the Oilers hockey - you´re just telling us your version. And none of them is the better one, it depends on the person, but i think that you won´t accept that, just because this is the Oilers board.

Hellström is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 03:24 PM
  #35
HellsBells
Registered User
 
HellsBells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: PEI
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigSimpson18
Back to the first point.
You´re critizing someone for loving the Oilers hockey - you´re just telling us your version. And none of them is the better one, it depends on the person, but i think that you won´t accept that, just because this is the Oilers board.

He attacked my list so I responded. He said that based on my list, I don't know much about hockey, that is a crock of ____ !! He can say that my list is wrong but I can't say that he is wrong. Okay !! No wonder there is no action on these boards. Anyone who has anything negative about the Oilers is attacked from every direction. This is an opinion forum, that's my opinion. If I can't say that they are wrong, they can't say that I am wrong. Only on an Oilers board I guess. You go to other teams boards and people actually have good arguments from other fans but you guys are just such homers that you can't even take a little critisism. It's pathetic.

HellsBells is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 03:34 PM
  #36
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
The Oilers are NOT the best team to watch. Obviously for Oilers fans they will be. I can name at least 10 teams that are much better to watch.

1. Avs
2. Wings
3. Blues
4. Canucks
5. Leafs
6. Sens
7. Bruins
8. Islanders
9. Flyers
10. Stars

That's off the top of my head. I watched the Oilers play the Flames twice this year and the Flames had them looking like a Junior hockey team. Really, the Flames !! The Oilers only look good when they play another team that doesn't care about defence. The Flames have proven that with good defence, the Oilers are not that good. How many shots in 2 games vs. the Flames. 30 or so...that's pretty exciting stuff.

Leafs? Isles? Stars? Yeah ok...Whatever you say. Judging by your other posts, I take whatever you say with a grain of salt. I guess you're entitled to your opinion. The majority of people, not just Oiler fans think the Oilers are one of the most exciting teams to watch. You don't even have them in your top ten.

Either your sole purpose here is to troll around, creating arguments or you are really a clueless individual. If I were you, I'd call myself a troll because you're freakin' embarrassing.

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 03:43 PM
  #37
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,868
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Yep, ask around the league, and you'll by Edmonton listed as one of the top five for most entertaining team in about 90% of the lists. Everybody is starting to argue how " I just gave my opinion, and he gave his, and i defended mine and he attacked it, and blah, blah, blah" Grow up. This guy has his opinion, and perhaps he likes watching defensive hockey. And that's fine.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 03:45 PM
  #38
Ryno
BEHOLD!!
 
Ryno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: G.P
Country: Canada
Posts: 529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
He attacked my list so I responded. He said that based on my list, I don't know much about hockey, that is a crock of ____ !! He can say that my list is wrong but I can't say that he is wrong. Okay !! No wonder there is no action on these boards. Anyone who has anything negative about the Oilers is attacked from every direction. This is an opinion forum, that's my opinion. If I can't say that they are wrong, they can't say that I am wrong. Only on an Oilers board I guess. You go to other teams boards and people actually have good arguments from other fans but you guys are just such homers that you can't even take a little critisism. It's pathetic.
Good heavens man, you better get to the doctor right away! I think you've got some tubes crossed or something, because everytime you open your mouth, sh_t comes out of it!




On a serious note, you MAY have some intelligent things to say, and you have SEEM to have SOME knowledge of the game of hockey, but don't you think you're asking for trouble coming on to the OILERS message board, spouting off the way you are?

Surely someone as intelligent as you could understand tact and diplomacy when visiting another team's messageboard. Had you arrived and said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactful and Diplomatic Garfield

"My opinion may be in the minority here, but I do not believe Mike Comrie will garner the return many Oiler fans predict, and here's why:

Insightful reason #1

Insightful reason #2, etc.
You probably would have been warmly received. Instead you come in with

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irritating, Troll-like Garfield
There is no way the Flames would give up Phaneuf for Comrie. Phaneuf is going to be a dominant D-man in this league while Comrie has 2nd line centre written all over him. I don't know why but you Oilers fans are really over-valuing Comrie. He is not worth a Coburn or Phaneuf or Suter. The only way the Oilers get a player like that is if the other team is absolutely desperate. The Oilers will not get much for Comrie as everyone knows his days as an Oiler are over. If Lowe wants a Phaneuf or Coburn, he'll be holding on to Comrie for a long, long time. Blah, Blah Blah...
And you seriouly question why you're taking this much flak over it? Maybe you're not as intelligent as I give you credit for

Ryno is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 04:01 PM
  #39
Hellström
Registered User
 
Hellström's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Iceland
Posts: 2,896
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Hellström
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
He attacked my list so I responded. He said that based on my list, I don't know much about hockey, that is a crock of ____ !! He can say that my list is wrong but I can't say that he is wrong. Okay !! No wonder there is no action on these boards. Anyone who has anything negative about the Oilers is attacked from every direction. This is an opinion forum, that's my opinion. If I can't say that they are wrong, they can't say that I am wrong. Only on an Oilers board I guess. You go to other teams boards and people actually have good arguments from other fans but you guys are just such homers that you can't even take a little critisism. It's pathetic.
The point is not that you say your opinion, it´s more the "how" - coming into this board and posting like Mr.Know-it-all.
It´s not the point that you have something negative to say, but it´s the way you say it - if you´re coming in and show "us" (i don´t like that "us", because i do have a different opinion from other Oiler Fans) the points it´s fine. If you´re coming in and you´re trying to make fun of those things and trying to make little brawl, then you´ll get something back. You get what you give (in each part of the life).

"You go to other teams boards and people actually have good arguments from other fans but you guys are just such homers that you can't even take a little critisism"

I´d like to see the good arguments. I´m just able to see a top10 list (and everybody will have a different one) and a short passage about two games where you´re saying, that the Oilers had problems with the play of the Flames. I´m not able to see, why the Oilers are not exciting to watch and why they are not one of the most exciting teams in the league overall after a complete season (don´t count on results).

"""The Oilers are NOT the best team to watch. Obviously for Oilers fans they will be. I can name at least 10 teams that are much better to watch.

1. Avs
2. Wings
3. Blues
4. Canucks
5. Leafs
6. Sens
7. Bruins
8. Islanders
9. Flyers
10. Stars

That's off the top of my head. I watched the Oilers play the Flames twice this year and the Flames had them looking like a Junior hockey team. Really, the Flames !! The Oilers only look good when they play another team that doesn't care about defence. The Flames have proven that with good defence, the Oilers are not that good. How many shots in 2 games vs. the Flames. 30 or so...that's pretty exciting stuff."""

Hellström is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 07:03 PM
  #40
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asiaoil
Get thee back to your stinky little island knave

As usual you COMPLETELY under-rate Oiler talent – you are so predictable it’s well - predictable. Hemsky and Torres are top line material and they will be devastating together. Put a bigger 2-way center between them (like Stefan or one of our prospects) and this line will be an excellent mix of power and talent. That allows Smyth York and Dvo/Izzy to be our second line and that is better than anything the Canucks can trot out. As for the defence – Brew and Semi both have top pair potential and that’s what they will be in a few years - but it’s going to take time for that potential to mature (like all dmen). After that you fill in with meat and potatoes guys which we have tons of in the system. The only thing I’m concerned about is in goal – and again – its not like the Dys have Roy in net.

You have been smitten now go away or I’ll wave my personals in your general direction once more
Okay, really, Asia, just because I don't think the team is full of future superstars doesn't mean I underrate Oiler talent! Here, I'll give you comparisons to players I think some of these guys could become:

(I'll also put their 'HF rating', which is the rating they have been given by the website. Note I am putting the MAXIMUM rating, not the minimum. Note that an 8 or higher is a 1st liner, 7 is 2nd liner, 6 is a 3rd liner/checker, etc..)

Hemsky - Hejduk with perhaps less goal scoring and better playmaking. 1st line upside. (No rating, but I assume it's an 8.5 or 9)

Torres - Brendan Morrow. 2nd line upside. (HF Rating - 7)

Stoll - Sort of like a modern day Trevor Linden. 2nd line upside (HF Rating - 7)

Rita - Personally I don't like him at all, but if he does become an NHL'er, I think PJ Axelsson is a decent comparison. 3rd/4th liner(HF rating 8)

Deslauriers - My favorite Oiler prospect. Starter potential. Not sure whom I'd compare him to (just another goaltender, they all look the same these days ) (HF Rating - 8)

Semenov - Ohlund/Krupp-esque. #2 defenseman potential. (HF Rating - 7)

And that's their top end. Let's say, for instance. two of those guys don't work out quite as planned. That would still be a stunning growth of the group of players, but I still wouldn't see enough top end talent. If Torres turns into more of a 2nd liner than a 1st (as you say he will be), if Deslauriers can't crack the NHL as a starter, if Semenov levels off in the #3 role, if Rita can't make the NHL at all, and if Stoll looks more like a 3rd liner, that's still pretty decent growth for those players, and you've got only 1 1st liner in Hemsky, and no top 2 defensemen.

I don't mean to be so pessimistic. Like I said, I love the depth. But I am just not sure that A) good enough coaching to get maximum potential out of 'em all, and B) that Rita is ever going to be an NHL'er.

I don't think I'm the only one slightly concerned. For a rebuilding team, the Oilers I feel could be doing a fair lot better than they are/have been. To give you an example, look what they have done there in LA, creating such a stunning stable of young players with pretty much no weaknesses outside of goaltending. They could potentially have a Stanley Cup winner in 5 - 10 years if those guys pan out. Can the Oilers? I just don't see it at the moment, unless Niinimaki is better than I think he is (truthfully, I don't know much about him at all). I think the Oilers for sure will be playoff bound with a core like this. But a great, Cup-contending team? That's what I'm not sure on.

That said, I do think that the Oilers are going to have their best year yet in the 2003 draft. In Pouliot I think they have gotten a player that should have gone about 5 - 10 picks earlier. He is the guy I wanted the Canucks to get, and I'm going to be whining about this one for years, no doubt.

I do think the Oilers will have a good team. A Cup winner, or Torres as a first liner seems a bit too high for me to predict.

PS: Two prospects whom I think will make a bigger impact than some Oiler fans even think, are Tony Salmelainen and Kyle Brodziac. I have seen Brodziac a few times now, and he's got NHL'er written all over him. Salmelainen is becoming one of my favorite Oilers prospects - he works so darn hard out there, how can you not love that?

Mizral is offline  
Old
11-12-2003, 09:40 PM
  #41
Hemsky01
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 255
vCash: 500
Mizral, you forgot about Miknov, Ninimakki, Poiliot who all have top line potential. Not that this has anything to do with the thread I started about loving to watch the Oilers. Garfield, go back into your little hole where you belong!

Hemsky01 is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 10:16 AM
  #42
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield
The Flyers are a very exciting team to watch, they hit everything in sight, I like that kind of hockey, not pond hockey like the Oilers play. I like defence and goaltending as well which the Oilers don't have any. The Islanders are a very good team, I think you don't know much about hockey. I suppose you still call Edmonton "City of Champions" LOL LOL !!

Seriously, you can't say that I don't know my hockey because I find many teams more exciting than the Oilers. That is homerism at it's best. If the Oilers had decent D and goaltending they'd be more exciting because they would win games.
Question... if you like defensive hockey and goaltending, why aren't teams like Minnesota, New Jersey, Nashville, etc... on there?

dawgbone is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 11:01 AM
  #43
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemsky01
Mizral, you forgot about Miknov, Ninimakki, Poiliot who all have top line potential. Not that this has anything to do with the thread I started about loving to watch the Oilers.
Heh, sorry for hijacking it. Yeah, I love watching the Oilers play too, though it can be frustrating at times.

Out of the three, Mikhnov, Ninimakki (I thought it was 'Niinimaki'?), and Pouliot, I only know much about Pouliot. But from what I've heard, Mikhnov and Niinimaki are dissapointing, the later having a season-ending injury (or is it only most of the season?). Are you sure they have top line potential? GuyF has Mikhnov listed at a '7', in other words, a 2nd line upside. Same goes for Niinimaki. Pouliot is a '7.5' which is halfway between a 2nd liner and a 1st liner.

It's awesome depth mind you.

Mizral is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 11:30 AM
  #44
EVH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 31
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
I'm pretty sure Chicago is the youngest team in the league right now.

Arnason, Bell, Ruutu, McLean, Calder, McCarthy, and Leighton are all key players in their lineup right now.

Mind you, Daze, Zhamnov, Thibault, and Sullivan are all out.

In regards to being young - being young doesn't necessarily mean you'll be better down the road. These youngsters have to improve. A lot. And even then, can they all improve enough? I think that's my biggest gripe with the Oilers. I don't think they have enough talent overall. I feel Lowe has traded away too much, and it's really starting to hurt them. Let's say that Comrie brings back one talented young forward. That would leave that player, Hemsky, and Torres as probobly the key talents at forward already on the roster. Where would that put them in 3 years? Potential wise, let's say that Comrie return has top line potential, Hemsky has top line potential, not sure about Torres (Maybe Morrow-like 2nd line potential). You're still missing, in my mind, a lot of other keys.

I see no #1 defensemen potentials n the Edmonton roster.

I love the depth of the youngsters in the organization. But it's the top end talent I'm worried about. I worry things will rebuild like they have done in Buffalo. One real good player (Satan) and a bunch of 2nd liners, no #1 goaltender or #1 defenseman either.
I agree with you for the most part, especially about potential and how it means very little in the long run. However, I don't think top end talent is a concern.

I think it's safe to assume that Hemsky and Smyth will be first liners 3 years from now. I think Dvorak and York will make up an excellent second line(first time in a long while the Oilers have been able to play their second line head to head with the best).

It's also safe to say that two of Isbister, Torres, Mikhnov, Ninnimaki, and Pouliot will become second liners as well.

As for the defense, Brewer will be a top pairing dman(not convinced he can be a #1 in the mold of Jovo, Blake, or Pronger). Smith is a great #3, Semenov will be a good top 4 dman, and then of course you have your Fergies, Bergerons, and Crosses to round out the d core. All that's missing is bonafide #1 dman, and I don't think that will be too much of a problem, especially consdering the fact that the vast majority of teams don't have one. Brew's capable of playing 30 minutes a game in the future anyways.

For me, the only question area is goal. You need a world class goalie to win the Stanley Cup, no matter how good your defense and offense is. Salo ain't it, and Deslauriers won't be ready to be a consistent starter until maybe 5-6 years from now.

EVH is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 12:20 PM
  #45
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,894
vCash: 500
EVH,
So what you're saying is that we're lacking a #1 centre, a #1 defender and a #1 goalie. Sigh.... its something that I've mentioned before too. Darn it all. But then it looks like Klowe is trying to build upon the Devils model with four fairly equal lines instead of a top two line.

Master Lok is online now  
Old
11-13-2003, 02:40 PM
  #46
HellsBells
Registered User
 
HellsBells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: PEI
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Question... if you like defensive hockey and goaltending, why aren't teams like Minnesota, New Jersey, Nashville, etc... on there?
You need to re-read my post. I said I like defence and goaltending AS WELL. That doesn't mean that I like defence & goaltending only. You obviously did not read my post properly.

HellsBells is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 02:51 PM
  #47
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,868
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizral
Okay, really, Asia, just because I don't think the team is full of future superstars doesn't mean I underrate Oiler talent! Here, I'll give you comparisons to players I think some of these guys could become:

(I'll also put their 'HF rating', which is the rating they have been given by the website. Note I am putting the MAXIMUM rating, not the minimum. Note that an 8 or higher is a 1st liner, 7 is 2nd liner, 6 is a 3rd liner/checker, etc..)

Hemsky - Hejduk with perhaps less goal scoring and better playmaking. 1st line upside. (No rating, but I assume it's an 8.5 or 9)

Torres - Brendan Morrow. 2nd line upside. (HF Rating - 7)

Stoll - Sort of like a modern day Trevor Linden. 2nd line upside (HF Rating - 7)

Rita - Personally I don't like him at all, but if he does become an NHL'er, I think PJ Axelsson is a decent comparison. 3rd/4th liner(HF rating 8)

Deslauriers - My favorite Oiler prospect. Starter potential. Not sure whom I'd compare him to (just another goaltender, they all look the same these days ) (HF Rating - 8)

Semenov - Ohlund/Krupp-esque. #2 defenseman potential. (HF Rating - 7)

And that's their top end. Let's say, for instance. two of those guys don't work out quite as planned. That would still be a stunning growth of the group of players, but I still wouldn't see enough top end talent. If Torres turns into more of a 2nd liner than a 1st (as you say he will be), if Deslauriers can't crack the NHL as a starter, if Semenov levels off in the #3 role, if Rita can't make the NHL at all, and if Stoll looks more like a 3rd liner, that's still pretty decent growth for those players, and you've got only 1 1st liner in Hemsky, and no top 2 defensemen.

I don't mean to be so pessimistic. Like I said, I love the depth. But I am just not sure that A) good enough coaching to get maximum potential out of 'em all, and B) that Rita is ever going to be an NHL'er.

I don't think I'm the only one slightly concerned. For a rebuilding team, the Oilers I feel could be doing a fair lot better than they are/have been. To give you an example, look what they have done there in LA, creating such a stunning stable of young players with pretty much no weaknesses outside of goaltending. They could potentially have a Stanley Cup winner in 5 - 10 years if those guys pan out. Can the Oilers? I just don't see it at the moment, unless Niinimaki is better than I think he is (truthfully, I don't know much about him at all). I think the Oilers for sure will be playoff bound with a core like this. But a great, Cup-contending team? That's what I'm not sure on.

That said, I do think that the Oilers are going to have their best year yet in the 2003 draft. In Pouliot I think they have gotten a player that should have gone about 5 - 10 picks earlier. He is the guy I wanted the Canucks to get, and I'm going to be whining about this one for years, no doubt.

I do think the Oilers will have a good team. A Cup winner, or Torres as a first liner seems a bit too high for me to predict.

PS: Two prospects whom I think will make a bigger impact than some Oiler fans even think, are Tony Salmelainen and Kyle Brodziac. I have seen Brodziac a few times now, and he's got NHL'er written all over him. Salmelainen is becoming one of my favorite Oilers prospects - he works so darn hard out there, how can you not love that?
The players you mentioned have been assessed fairly. But you left SO many off that list. Also, you said about Mikhnov being a disapointment - as of now, he's probably as high or higher in how well he's looked this year as what Pouliot and Deslauriers are! I mean this whole talk about the Oilers being in scary shape is bull - because their organization is in MUCH better shape then atleast 2/3 of the league! Like you say Hemsky will be our only first liner - well what happened to Smyth? And who knows what we'll get for Comrie!?! I expect more sense out of your posts Miz'.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 03:54 PM
  #48
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,150
vCash: 500
First off, Thome, don't overreact. I agree with you, the Oilers prospects are top 10 - 15 in the league no doubt in my mind. They have a great stable of guys! In terms of depth, I would say maybe only 2 or 3 teams can match the Oilers in depth of prospects.

I just worry that I don't know if I see enough top end potential in the Oilers prospect. IE: Superstars, or even sub-stars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EVH
I agree with you for the most part, especially about potential and how it means very little in the long run. However, I don't think top end talent is a concern.

I think it's safe to assume that Hemsky and Smyth will be first liners 3 years from now. I think Dvorak and York will make up an excellent second line(first time in a long while the Oilers have been able to play their second line head to head with the best).

It's also safe to say that two of Isbister, Torres, Mikhnov, Ninnimaki, and Pouliot will become second liners as well.

As for the defense, Brewer will be a top pairing dman(not convinced he can be a #1 in the mold of Jovo, Blake, or Pronger). Smith is a great #3, Semenov will be a good top 4 dman, and then of course you have your Fergies, Bergerons, and Crosses to round out the d core. All that's missing is bonafide #1 dman, and I don't think that will be too much of a problem, especially consdering the fact that the vast majority of teams don't have one. Brew's capable of playing 30 minutes a game in the future anyways.

For me, the only question area is goal. You need a world class goalie to win the Stanley Cup, no matter how good your defense and offense is. Salo ain't it, and Deslauriers won't be ready to be a consistent starter until maybe 5-6 years from now.
Okay, I think we're on the same page here. Just some things I'd like to point out:

#1 - Jason Smith will probobly slow down in 3 years. Will he be a #3 defenseman in 3 - 5 years? Probobly not. I liken Smith to Murray Baron. I feel he is already slowly declining, but he should be a useful player for a few more years, no question. But will he be a good #3 man? I really don't know. Also, as the Oilers get better, standards will be raised. Smith may not live up to them.

#2 - Can we expect that Lowe will keep all of Smyth, Brewer, and York for 3 more years? I really don't think so. Maybe York & one of the other two, but it doesn't seem possible to me. Case in point: 3 years ago, the Oilers core was Weight, Guerin, Niinimaa, Carter, and Smyth. Only one of those guys are still around now. (not including Salo, whom I think we can all agree on is gonzo at the soonest possible time) Heck, last year, Smyth, Comrie, York, Carter, Niinimaa, Brewer. (Only three of those are still around, two are already gone, and the third is on his way)

#3 - This is a big one for me: Can Jeff Deslauriers be a #1 goaltender? I personally have the utmost faith in him that he will. However, on the off chance he doesn't.. it could look real bad..

I don't think I'm being overly pessimistic. I do think I'm looking at this quite realistically. I don't think it's realistic to expect everything to pan out in terms of prospects 100%, and all the other good players to be kept around no matter what happens.

Mizral is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 08:25 PM
  #49
Hemsky01
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Saskatoon
Posts: 255
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Mizral]
#2 - Can we expect that Lowe will keep all of Smyth, Brewer, and York for 3 more years? I really don't think so. Maybe York & one of the other two, but it doesn't seem possible to me. Case in point: 3 years ago, the Oilers core was Weight, Guerin, Niinimaa, Carter, and Smyth. Only one of those guys are still around now. (not including Salo, whom I think we can all agree on is gonzo at the soonest possible time) Heck, last year, Smyth, Comrie, York, Carter, Niinimaa, Brewer. (Only three of those are still around, two are already gone, and the third is on his way)

QUOTE]

Hey Miz, guess what, next season there will be a lockout and a totally different salary structure (Have you been living in a hole for the last 5 years??). If there isn't, there are no more oilers, if there is, than all of Smyth, Brewer, and York, Hemsky will stay

Hemsky01 is offline  
Old
11-13-2003, 11:51 PM
  #50
Oilers Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Heartland of Hockey
Posts: 1,531
vCash: 500
I would hate to put an admin on my ignore list, as this one talks out of his ass seemingly all the time, but I am getting really sick of this troll disguised as an admin.

Honestly, a poster earlier commented on how "predictable" he is, and they are 100% correct. Probably mistakes his seriously flawed assessments with "realism", and if he isn't a troll, he wouldn't have insulted me in another thread. He bumped this really old thread about NW goaltending from before the season started when I thought that Salo was the best NW division goalie (which wasn't too farfetched at the time, before the season started) so then this troll/admin called me a homer, among other things, because of something I said long ago while using the fact that Tommy has the worst stats NOW. It just pissed me off. It is one of the reasons why I can't stand Mizral, he is a hypocrite of the highest degree.

Oh, and by the way, the reason Mizral acted like a child and attacked me was because I said I felt Weight "only" deserved a 2-game suspension, so Mizral, along with his legions of Canuck trolls, jumped all over me. Hmmm...Don Cherry agrees with me though, he said so on HNIC.

Anyways your reasoning about why you think everything about the Oilers suck (don't be a chicken; just flat out say it like you want to) is really, really flawed. You probably take a quick glance at our prospects off a site like hockeydb.com and say "Oh so and so is good, and so and so is really bad" without taking any time to learn about them...I find it really insulting. You don't see any Oiler fans going to the Nucks board saying that their prospects suck or their team will never be a Cup contender.

Okay I am done venting, but I have given my reasons why I am so grumpy whenever Les Mizrable decides to grace us with his presence. Please forgive me if I've painted a bad picture of Oiler fans but I needed to get that off my chest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield-Should-Take-Trolling-101-Because-His-"Insults"-Are-Really-Lame-And-Ineffective
I suppose you still call Edmonton "City of Champions" LOL LOL !!
Oh and Garfield, "insulting" Edmonton about our City of Champs nickname doesn't make us angry, it amuses us. Seriously. Only jealous fans that are green with envy try to insult our cities nickname. Thats a fact, jack.

Oilers Hockey 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 05:36 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.