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

Things I don't agree with...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-23-2003, 10:20 AM
  #1
HotToddy
Registered User
 
HotToddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,598
vCash: 500
Things I don't agree with...

Things that I read all the time that I totally disagree with. No slight at anyone just personal opinion I thought I would try one more post before the holidays.

We’re missing Marty Reasoner more than we thought – Yeah sure we’re missing him but if losing your third line defensive centre causes you to go on a slump than you deserve to miss the playoffs. I don’t see Detroit using it as an excuse that half they’re team is in the infirmary.

K-Lowe is building for the post-CBA era – I have to admit I was furious the first time I read this piece of spin almost three years ago when some fish hack presented Lowe’s statement as fact. I understand the challenges of a small-budget team but doesn’t this just admit defeat? What about the other small-market teams that have made playoff runs on small payrolls?

What logic is there in building your team for a CBA agreement that hasn’t been signed yet. Do we really believe that the new CBA is going to bring other teams in the league back down to our level. Not in a million years. Anyone who believes a hard cap of any value will be instituted, I have a nice piece of land in Chernobyl to sell you. There will be some major concessions gained; soft cap, maybe an end to arbitration/ 10% qualifier/contract bonuses but if the hard cap is the hill the owners want to die on then it will be a long fight followed by a capitulation by the owners who history shows are never really solidified going in to these things. There will be a market correction (there would have been anyway) and a slow down in salaries but teams that want to make a run at it will still be able to sign free agents for big money.

Then what will our excuse be? The fact remains good drafting and good asset management are what make teams succeed in the long run not deep pockets.


Rules need to be changed to allow more scoring – I don’t hear this complaint on this board as much as do from TV hacks on a nightly basis. Has anyone watched a clip from a hockey game say 15 years ago recently? Want to know why scoring is down, because the freaking goalies were HORRIBLE in the 80’s. They were all stand-up goalies who relied on reaction and spaghetti thin pads. Remember when you were a kid in minor hockey you were always taught to shoot low, and the goalies were always told to stay on their feet. Then some smart goalie realized that by going down and spreading out you take away the shooters most natural target. Then goalies started wearing gigantic, ultralight equipment. The skill, size and style of goaltending has evolved quicker and better than that of shooters in the past 10 years. This is natural and the shooters will catch up over the coarse of time. And yes the trap is large part of the equation but time will reveal remedies for the trap and a new style fad will sweep over the league. We don’t need 3 foot wide blue lines, no redlines, 4 on 4 or larger nets. We need the media to quit finding things to whine about.

And lastly on the subject of the media, kudos to this site for it’s exceptional coverage and for the knowledgeable fans who use this board. I find more info in 5 quick minutes on this site than I will in one week of fishwrap reading. In my opinion this site is challenging the establishment and is making sports reporting in this city better. As a life long reader of the Journal I never thought I would ever contemplate cancelling my subscription but HockeysFuture.com is making me ponder that decision. Keep up the good work! Happy Holidays to Everyone!

HotToddy is offline  
Old
12-23-2003, 10:30 AM
  #2
serum114
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,766
vCash: 500
Great post, I always seem to enjoy it when you say your piece :-)

I must strongly echo your sentiments in regard to the site and the challenges it poses to the establishment. As a four-year poster and now, fortunate enough to be a six-month employee, I have a ton of faith and respect for Hockey's Future. There have been definite bumps and growing pains, and there will be more, but I feel this website and all it's eventual subsidiaries (be they print, television, radio or online) will be a major player in the coming decades.

It's an exciting time, to be sure.

Happy holidays all, and many thanks for being part of the HF magic...

My 2 cents,

Lawrence Bailey (AKA serum114)
HF Staff and HF fan

serum114 is offline  
Old
12-23-2003, 11:53 AM
  #3
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
While you may be right that the CBA will bring no level playing field... honestly everything is up in the air. We can all hope for it to happen but it is nowhere near a guarantee.

The fact remains is that unless something happens in the CBA where the current owners of the Edmonton Oilers deem it acceptable so that the Oilers can win and make a profit... the Oilers WILL be sold. That may essentially mean that Edmonton will no longer have an NHL team. Not an appetizing thought but should the results of the CBA lay out as you suggest, I am relatively sure that the owners will take that stance.

Sure they'll try to find a buyer that will keep the team in Edmonton but when push comes to shove.. they'll take whatever they can get even if it means moving the team to Portland.

momentai is offline  
Old
12-23-2003, 12:06 PM
  #4
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Just to play a little Devil's advocate;

Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy
We’re missing Marty Reasoner more than we thought – Yeah sure we’re missing him but if losing your third line defensive centre causes you to go on a slump than you deserve to miss the playoffs. I don’t see Detroit using it as an excuse that half they’re team is in the infirmary.
I think this team IS missing Reasoner more than people would have originally thought. Seems to me though that Reasoner is more of a "last straw" scenario then he is just missing a good checking center.

Last year, Lowe let Marchant walk. A decision I still support today even though the Oil are slumping. However when Lowe never qualified Marchant, I don't think he was ever anticipating the Comrie fiasco to occur. Then Reasoner went down. Lowe responded by signing Oates but at his age and the point in the season that he signed at, you can't expect him to do much before the stretch the Oilers are just starting to enter now.

Basically, despite Oates being signed, the Oilers are down 3 starting centers. If Reasoners injury occured in February and Oates was playing up to par then his injury isn't felt as much. As it turned out it happend early and the team didn't have the horses down the center that would otherwise make up for the loss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy
K-Lowe is building for the post-CBA era – I have to admit I was furious the first time I read this piece of spin almost three years ago when some fish hack presented Lowe’s statement as fact. I understand the challenges of a small-budget team but doesn’t this just admit defeat? What about the other small-market teams that have made playoff runs on small payrolls?
Just my opinion here, we saw a cycle develop here probably since 97 under Sather, we had 1 or 2 high end guys a bunch of developing guys a good goalie and some proven journeymen, the team never got beyond that - 1 player would leave and a younger cheaper version of the same would be brought in. Point is, the team was built and maintained for mediocrity. In the last couple years Lowe has broken that mold. We don't have 1 or 2 real high end guys, they have less journeymen, much much more developing talent and instead of 2 guys carrying the first two lines there are 8 guys capable of playing on the top two lines on any given night.

To some it may look like throwing in the towel, but to me it looks like a change in phylosophy and a rebuild that necessitates it. It also happens to be something that coincides with the CBA probably more out of merging time lines then anything else but since the timelines are merging, doesn't it make sense that everything ties in together. The fact that the financial climate coming out of the CBA may be much different is no small influence on how the last pieces may be put together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy
What logic is there in building your team for a CBA agreement that hasn’t been signed yet. Do we really believe that the new CBA is going to bring other teams in the league back down to our level. Not in a million years. Anyone who believes a hard cap of any value will be instituted, I have a nice piece of land in Chernobyl to sell you. There will be some major concessions gained; soft cap, maybe an end to arbitration/ 10% qualifier/contract bonuses but if the hard cap is the hill the owners want to die on then it will be a long fight followed by a capitulation by the owners who history shows are never really solidified going in to these things. There will be a market correction (there would have been anyway) and a slow down in salaries but teams that want to make a run at it will still be able to sign free agents for big money.
As mentioned, I think the post CBA thing is a coincidence in timing for the most part. If Lowe had been the GM 8 years ago and had the same vision for the team that he seems to be assembling then we would be watching a team that is 4 years closer to the final product or possiblyin the midst of the final product.

Now with that said, would he already be in a recycling mode because this all came to fruition pre-cba? or does the fact that the team will come together post cba mean that the days of simply recycling players is over or at the very least much more reduced?

I think there's a belief that enough will come out of the negotiations to ensure that teams similar to Edmonton won't still be stuck in that vicious cycle and that is what has to be planned for.

Let's be realistic, if the CBA doesn't produce the needed results then WHO is playing on the Oilers is the least of the concerns and WHERE the Oilers will be playing will be primary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy
Then what will our excuse be? The fact remains good drafting and good asset management are what make teams succeed in the long run not deep pockets.
I think Lowe has done a much better job than his predecessor in drafting a developing talent.

As far as excuses go, there won't be and shouldn't be. The success of the team should be judged solely on the job the GM does and the results the coach gets. It has been a long time since that has been the case. Every GM (including ours) has a built in excuse and I for one look forward to judging the team strictly on the job the team does.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
12-23-2003, 12:09 PM
  #5
Oil_in_my_veins
Registered User
 
Oil_in_my_veins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Windsor, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 930
vCash: 500
Great Post. I agree with most of your post except:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy
We don’t need ...no redlines,
I believe that removing the center ice red line would generate a lot of offence and "neutralize" the trap. especially for a team like the Oilers that has speed to burn.

but if the NHL does remove the red line we'll have to get Anson (cherry picker) Carter back

sorry to repeat what has been said here a million times but that red line has to go...

Oil_in_my_veins is offline  
Old
12-23-2003, 12:15 PM
  #6
Narnia
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Narnia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,394
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Narnia
Bob MacKenzie once mentioned 5 changes but I can only remember two. They were Touch-Up Off Side and No Touch Icing. I agree with both. Racing for the puck to avoid icing may be exciting for the fans but the risk of injury is there as well. Add those two and there would be less injuries than there are now.

__________________
"He just ate up Robyn Regehr for dinner, a spectacular play by Hemsky, and Robyn Regehr has got doo doo all over his face" - Rod Phillips call on Hemsky's goal vs the Flames
Narnia is offline  
Old
12-23-2003, 01:09 PM
  #7
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 Joe Oilfan
Great Post. I agree with most of your post except:



I believe that removing the center ice red line would generate a lot of offence and "neutralize" the trap. especially for a team like the Oilers that has speed to burn.

but if the NHL does remove the red line we'll have to get Anson (cherry picker) Carter back

sorry to repeat what has been said here a million times but that red line has to go...
The only thing no redline will do is ensure more icings.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
12-23-2003, 02:42 PM
  #8
Boondock Saint
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
The only thing no redline will do is ensure more icings.
Are you kidding???

You couldn't be more wrong...

Have you never watched international hockey with no redline???

Tell me after watching one of those games again that it only results in more icings.

Boondock Saint is offline  
Old
12-23-2003, 03:21 PM
  #9
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 Boondock Saint
Are you kidding???

You couldn't be more wrong...

Have you never watched international hockey with no redline???

Tell me after watching one of those games again that it only results in more icings.
International games also have about one and a half times the room, which makes a big difference when you are factoring in the no redline rule.

It is much easier to get open on the international ice than it is in the NHL, meaning in an NHL game you need to thread the needle even more. The only major benefit you would get is a guy jumping out of the penalty box, or in a worst case scenario, guys cherry picking.

If you make the homerun pass available, teams are going to risk it, and it's no easier to make a 2-line offside pass than it is to make a normal onside pass.

If they added in the stipulation that anything the linesman feels is an attempted pass that goes for an icing, should be waved off, then the no redline might be something that could work. Otherwise it'll just be an icing factory.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
12-23-2003, 03:38 PM
  #10
hmminvisiblecola1279
I just hope we can
 
hmminvisiblecola1279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: win a game
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,383
vCash: 500
i like the idea of taking the redline out as well, however teams like the czech republic can still play an effective trap, remember back in seoul in the olympics. a coach like jacques lemaire im sure would quickly adapt and the usual crap i mean trap would continue.

hmminvisiblecola1279 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 04:20 AM.

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.