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

The Good, the Not-So-Bad, the Bad, and the FUGLY.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-12-2004, 10:08 PM
  #1
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
The Good, the Not-So-Bad, the Bad, and the FUGLY.

Game Review list for the season so far:

The Good-

Thur., Oct 9 9:00p.m. San Jose W 5-2
-Gave promise for the coming year. Scoring on rushes, high pressure attack, good enough goaltending. We went home happy.

Thur., Oct 16 9:00p.m. Buffalo W 4-1
-Just a plain solid victory, it was nice to see after those SO losses. More home scoring!

Sat., Oct 18 10:00p.m. Colorado W 6-3
-The night that made alot of us believe. When Smytty found Marty for that SH goal, right after we had every chance to fold and be the old Oilers, I really thought something was special with that team.

Tues., Nov 18 9:00p.m. Chicago W 5-2
-A whole month later......just another solid victory against a team you should do this to.

Thur., Nov 20 9:00p.m. Toronto W 3-2
-T.O. didn't lose for 15-17 regulation games after this one, and we played exceedingly well

Sat., Dec 27 10:00p.m. at Vancouver W 6-2
-The slumping Oil tempt us with a virtuoso performance in Van-city.

Sat., Jan 10 7:00p.m. at Philadelphia W 3-0
-Could've been a more severe beating, in control of a team down on itself, took advantage.

Total: 7 games, points:14

Notice the teams listed, notice the amount of goals we score.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

The Not-So-Bad

Thur., Oct 30 9:00p.m. Columbus W 4-3 (OT)
-Shouldn't take you OT to beat those guys, almost my worst nightmare, Toddy nohands almost win it with seconds to go. We slacked all night and missed easy chances.

Sat., Nov 1 10:00p.m. Detroit T 4-4
-We had an ailing Detroit team against the ropes, and couldn't put one more by Manny. Partially due to his stellar play in the clutch, partially due to our own ineptness, especially old Ryan.

Tues., Nov 4 7:30p.m. at Montreal W 4-2
-Decent performance, but lucky to get the win they did.

Mon., Nov 10 7:00p.m. at N.Y. Rangers W 5-4
-Got the job done, kept the offence humming. Not an overly good game though.

Thur., Nov 13 8:00p.m. at Minnesota W 2-0
-What you should do easily against Minnesota if you're the Oil. Our style easily beats theirs where other more talented teams can't, IF our coach doesn't make us back away from it.

Sat., Nov 15 10:00p.m. Calgary W 2-1 (OT)
-Slight miracle we got outta this with a win. So many chances, such a weak effort, but we won.

Sun., Dec 14 8:00p.m. at Anaheim W 3-2
-Again, just gettin the job done.

Fri., Jan 2 8:00p.m. at Minnesota W 2-1
-Ditto, not an outstanding performance, but hung on. No excuse for it being close.

Sun., Jan 4 7:00p.m. at Chicago W 4-3
-Chicago is a brutal hockey team, beating them by only one is kinda sad, but it's a 'W'.

Total: 9 games, Points: 17

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

The Bad

Sat., Oct 11 10:00p.m. at Vancouver L 0-3
-Nothing happened in this game. The Oil might as well have sat on the bench

Tues., Oct 21 9:00p.m. St. Louis L 4-6
-Craig MacTavish is what happened this game: I KNOW! We'll get a BIG lead and then I'll COMPLETELY CHANGE THE GAMEPLAN just as we get rolling. Get off the ice top lines! We don't need you anymore! Offence is working and keepin them outta our end, but I wanna try Def.......oopsie.

Thur., Nov 6 7:30p.m. at Ottawa T 3-3
-Struggling Ottawa team, chances galore and we blew it.

Tues., Nov 11 7:00p.m. at Boston L 3-4
-Not a terrible performance, but just not enough to win, which is bad because we had a ton of chances but no execution.

Sat., Nov 22 7:00p.m. Montreal L 3-4
-Just the result was bad. The players didn't have the focus and again, the execution, required. The day our season went south, it's all been downhill from there.

Tues., Nov 25 7:00p.m. at Columbus T 3-3
-Tying Columbus??? Please........

Sun., Nov 30 8:00p.m. San Jose L 1-2
-Inexcusable, SJ was still down at this time. Pretty much the beginning of the 'no offence' stage of the season

Sat., Dec 6 10:00p.m. Pittsburgh W 4-3
-Beating Pitt by one at home was sad, having to charge to do it was even worse.......

Thur., Dec 11 10:30p.m. at San Jose T 2-2
-Blech, no scoring.

Fri., Dec 12 9:00p.m. at Phoenix T 3-3
-Let PHX bring the play, instead of taking over when they had every opportunity.

Tues., Dec 16 10:30p.m. at Los Angeles L 2-4
-Wounded LA team shoulda been easy fodder.

Tues., Dec 30 9:00p.m. Minnesota T 2-2
-You already know my position on Minnesota games.

Mon., Jan 5 7:30p.m. at New Jersey L 2-3 (OT)
-Would've been a MASSIVE win, and they had it bagged too, but again, execution and focus just didn't seem to be there.

Thur., Jan 8 7:00p.m. at N.Y. Islanders L 2-3
-Losing by 1 to NYI in those circumstances was so disgusting it isn't even funny. Nice Penalty Smytty!

Total: 14 games, Points:8

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..

The FUGLY

Tues., Oct 14 10:00p.m. at Calgary L 0-1
-Anyone who actually watched this putrid display through all the way, I don't know whether to reward you or cry for you. ZERO effort or execution or offensive gameplan for Oilers.

Thur., Oct 23 9:00p.m. at Colorado L 1-6
-Talk about a momentum killer. Nothin like gettin trounced in Colorado.

Sat., Oct 25 10:00p.m. Calgary L 2-4
-Again we embarass ourselves on CBC by looking completely inept. Great.

Sat., Nov 8 7:00p.m. at Toronto L 1-4
-This night was one of the worst nights in Oilers recent history. The Comrie interview, and you could see the team unravelling.

Wed., Nov 26 7:30p.m. at Detroit L 1-7
-You know when your starting goalie plays WELL and you lose 7-1, something's wrong with the team. That was one sick performance in Detroit when they needed a big one. Again no one answers the bell.

Fri., Nov 28 9:00p.m. Colorado L 1-4
-See essentially previous game, -goalie praise and insert Colorado

Wed., Dec 3 9:00p.m. Minnesota L 0-1
-Ever feel like a hockey game was water dropping on your head one drop at a time? That's what this was like. The team was so incredibly putrid that night it was inconcievable.

Tues., Dec 9 9:00p.m. Carolina L 2-3
-Previous game, but not quite as bad. Close though. Essentially a 3-0 game. Zero effort, zero gameplan.

Thur., Dec 18 9:00p.m. Minnesota T 1-1
-Almost as bad, yet again. It was really hard to do game reports at this time.

Sat., Dec 20 10:00p.m. Vancouver L 0-3
-Am I seeing double? Didn't we already play this game???

Tues., Dec 23 9:00p.m. at Calgary L 1-2
-Don't remind me about this one.

Sun., Dec 28 8:00p.m. Calgary L 1-2
-I really am seein double now. Game reports un-doable, became ramblings

Sun., Jan 11 6:00p.m. at Washington L 0-1
-The epitome of what's wrong with our team. An easy win, that we were nowhere close to getting.

Total: 13 games, Points: 1

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

More analysis later!

BASH AWAY!

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
01-12-2004, 10:11 PM
  #2
Walsher
Registered User
 
Walsher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,339
vCash: 500
All I know is that if this team loses another game 1-0 this year there is a good chance I am going to completely lose it. Your account of the games seems to match mine. Yet another year of games that seemed to get away. Point squandered early results in struggle for 8th spot. Frustrating season as any to be sure.

Walsher is offline  
Old
01-12-2004, 10:24 PM
  #3
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walsher
All I know is that if this team loses another game 1-0 this year there is a good chance I am going to completely lose it. Your account of the games seems to match mine. Yet another year of games that seemed to get away. Point squandered early results in struggle for 8th spot. Frustrating season as any to be sure.
The LMHF's were right when they said we needed a sniper. I laughed at when they said we should go after Bondra, but now I'm not so sure. A sniper would have REALLY helped us win those games when we had 100 chances but no results. Maybe it's Rita time.

The Rage is offline  
Old
01-12-2004, 10:48 PM
  #4
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
First Ugly Stats:

3 losses by 1-0 scores against Calgary, Minnesota, and Washington.
All fairly bad hockey teams, all games with no offence ever even close to happening.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Total SO losses: 5, others both to VAN 3-0.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Games with one or less goals scored: 13.

Results, 1 tie, the rest losses. 8 1-goal, 5 shut-outs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Games with two or less goals scored: 23.

Results, 3 wins (2 MIN, 1 CAL) 3 ties (SJ, 2 MIN), rest losses. 10 2-goal games.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

BETTER STATS

Games with four goals scored: 12

Results, 10 wins (SJ, BUF, COL, 2 CHI, VAN, CMB, MON, NYR, PITT), 1 loss (STL) 1 tie (DET)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I repeat my earlier sentiments about goal scoring.


And just some things to look at:

Look at our divisional record, YARGH! And look at all the bad teams we lose to vs. good teams we beat, shows how good we should be if we were adaquately prepared.

AND COMING UP!------

The 3-goal game stats, which will show how much of a difference ONE MEASLEY GOAL EVERY 2 GAMES can make to a season. It doesn't take much either. And why 2 MORE GOOD PLAYERS are all we need for now.


Last edited by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1: 01-12-2004 at 10:56 PM.
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
01-13-2004, 08:01 AM
  #5
looooob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
3 losses by 1-0 scores against Calgary, Minnesota, and Washington.
All fairly bad hockey teams, all games with no offence ever even close to happening.

I realize the Flames are playing over their heads, and I'm not going to convert anyone here....but they are 9 games over .500 and have allowed the second fewest goals in the entire NHL....you can question the Oilers effort in that game, but the Flames aren't THAT bad right now

looooob is offline  
Old
01-13-2004, 03:02 PM
  #6
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,899
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=looooob]3 losses by 1-0 scores against Calgary, Minnesota, and Washington.
All fairly bad hockey teams, all games with no offence ever even close to happening.

It will happen. Losing to Calgary and Minnesota by one goal... guess what LMHF? That's their game plan. This is the era of the Trap. In a trap, you don't win 6-4, or 4-0. You try to win 1-0, 2-1, or 3-1 etc. Close games, low scoring, mind numbing trapping. Calgary and Minnesota have won their games due to this tactic and a majority of their games are probably by this type of score. I notice that you fail to give Calgary and Minnesota their due credit. Calgary is currently 6th while Minny is 11th. While I agree, losing 1-0 to the defensively porous Washington is sad, losing 1-0 to Minnesota and Calgary should be totally expected if either of those team fulfill their game plan.

Master Lok is offline  
Old
01-13-2004, 04:34 PM
  #7
jadeddog
Registered User
 
jadeddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Posts: 12,029
vCash: 500
pretty much every person on this board has been thinking "maybe its rita time" for the past month now

jadeddog is offline  
Old
01-13-2004, 07:17 PM
  #8
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=neogeo69]
Quote:
Originally Posted by looooob
3 losses by 1-0 scores against Calgary, Minnesota, and Washington.
All fairly bad hockey teams, all games with no offence ever even close to happening.

It will happen. Losing to Calgary and Minnesota by one goal... guess what LMHF? That's their game plan. This is the era of the Trap. In a trap, you don't win 6-4, or 4-0. You try to win 1-0, 2-1, or 3-1 etc. Close games, low scoring, mind numbing trapping. Calgary and Minnesota have won their games due to this tactic and a majority of their games are probably by this type of score. I notice that you fail to give Calgary and Minnesota their due credit. Calgary is currently 6th while Minny is 11th. While I agree, losing 1-0 to the defensively porous Washington is sad, losing 1-0 to Minnesota and Calgary should be totally expected if either of those team fulfill their game plan.
Don't tell Calgary fans their team plays the trap. I did that once, and about 50 of them entered the thread and lambasted me.

The Rage is offline  
Old
01-13-2004, 07:21 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 jadeddog
pretty much every person on this board has been thinking "maybe its rita time" for the past month now
I think Rita thinks he is already called up, because he sure doesn't appear to be in Toronto anymore.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
01-13-2004, 07:33 PM
  #10
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 4,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rage
Don't tell Calgary fans their team plays the trap. I did that once, and about 50 of them entered the thread and lambasted me.
Well, they don't play the trap. They do place emphasis on defence, that's for sure, but they don't play the trap. Watch Minnesota play, then watch Calgary. You'll see that Calgary's defensive system isn't the same.

BTW LoudmouthHemskyfan#1, how is Calgary a bad team? They're looking like playoff contenders this year, thanks to improved coaching, maturing of the defence, and upgraded offense over recent years. They sit in 6th in the West.

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
01-13-2004, 08:16 PM
  #11
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man
Well, they don't play the trap. They do place emphasis on defence, that's for sure, but they don't play the trap. Watch Minnesota play, then watch Calgary. You'll see that Calgary's defensive system isn't the same.

BTW LoudmouthHemskyfan#1, how is Calgary a bad team? They're looking like playoff contenders this year, thanks to improved coaching, maturing of the defence, and upgraded offense over recent years. They sit in 6th in the West.
They're untalented and well coached. That's it. Our team is a more talented team, but lacks the coaching and consistency of play. On any given night we should beat Calgary. And don't get me started on Minnesota. Losing to Minnesota is so brutal it's not even funny, I can't even come up with one of trademark bad sayings to describe it. There is essentially nothing on that team besides the guy wearing #10, and their vaunted defence is so untalented that it could be skated right through with full trapping implements in place........given your coach knows how to beat the trap, and has the guts to play that way.

Losing by one to Calgary and Minny, then saying "they trap, it's what happens" is making excuses, which is exactly what our coaching staff does and exactly why we underperform so much. Instead of whining about a trap and saying how hard those games are, a good coach divises methods to beat the opposing team's system (yes, you can beat the trap and it's more simple than you think) and then gives that to his players to execute.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
01-13-2004, 08:46 PM
  #12
HOZ
Registered User
 
HOZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
They're untalented and well coached. That's it. Our team is a more talented team, but lacks the coaching and consistency of play. On any given night we should beat Calgary. And don't get me started on Minnesota. Losing to Minnesota is so brutal it's not even funny, I can't even come up with one of trademark bad sayings to describe it. There is essentially nothing on that team besides the guy wearing #10, and their vaunted defence is so untalented that it could be skated right through with full trapping implements in place........given your coach knows how to beat the trap, and has the guts to play that way.

Losing by one to Calgary and Minny, then saying "they trap, it's what happens" is making excuses, which is exactly what our coaching staff does and exactly why we underperform so much. Instead of whining about a trap and saying how hard those games are, a good coach divises methods to beat the opposing team's system (yes, you can beat the trap and it's more simple than you think) and then gives that to his players to execute.
sigh....

Yes Calgary does it all through coaching. Iginla sucks. The vets don't have a clue. The defensemen are bums. Kreamyboy has the worst GAA in the league. Sutter is doing it all!

The Oilers are a well coached team. It just isn't a very good team. They suffer from LOFT. No system, new coach, vulcan mind-melds, endless meetings, and continual hissy-fits behind the bench will change all that mishmash of talent, bums and missfits into the Detroit Red Wings.

Time to lump it LMHF since you are not going to like the fact the Oilers are just not a very good team...yet.

Talent doesn't win games.

HOZ is offline  
Old
01-13-2004, 09:34 PM
  #13
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ

Time to lump it LMHF since you are not going to like the fact the Oilers are just not a very good team...yet.

Talent doesn't win games.

They should be. And if properly used, motivated, and planned out, yes, talent is what wins games, because talent leads to execution.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
01-13-2004, 09:56 PM
  #14
Ice Cream Man
$1 Oysters
 
Ice Cream Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 4,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
They're untalented and well coached. That's it. Our team is a more talented team, but lacks the coaching and consistency of play. On any given night we should beat Calgary. And don't get me started on Minnesota. Losing to Minnesota is so brutal it's not even funny, I can't even come up with one of trademark bad sayings to describe it. There is essentially nothing on that team besides the guy wearing #10, and their vaunted defence is so untalented that it could be skated right through with full trapping implements in place
Untalented? Not really. That's a pretty uneducated comment, IMO. There's plenty of talent on that team. If you mean in terms of offense, Edmonton has a few more offensive-minded players, but that doesn't make Calgary any less talented. I'd take Calgary's defence, goaltending, coaching, and half their forwards over Edmonton's anyday of the week.

Plus, just to add, coaching only takes you so far; its the players on the ice that have to do the work ultimately. To me, that makes any productivity 95% player, 5% coach. If Calgary is well coached, then that's fine - but its the players who actually make the difference.

On any given night the Oilers should beat Calgary, and the same with Minnesota? Please. That just sounds like whining. THere's a reason why Calgary is relatively far ahead in the standings, and Minnesota has the same number of points as Edmonton - you may claim that the Oilers are the more talented team (and even if they are, who really cares?), but Edmonton has too many shortcomings in other areas to make up for their 'better offense'. Calgary is just currently the superior team of the two, and standings back that up.

Until Edmonton catches up with Calgary in the standings, the talent argument is useless; it's grasping for straws. Calgary is playing like a playoff team whereas Edmonton isn't. Don't like it? Tough. The standings tell it all.

Ice Cream Man is offline  
Old
01-13-2004, 10:01 PM
  #15
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rage
Don't tell Calgary fans their team plays the trap. I did that once, and about 50 of them entered the thread and lambasted me.
I know I've had this talk with you before, and its not like the Flames never trap, but step back from the rivarly for a second. Are they that incredibly boring? Do they not forecheck? Maybe they don't score quite as much as other teams, they could really use one more finisher, but its not like their Carolina in that regards. The thing that bothers us Flame fans on this thread and many others is that if we ever get ahead in the standings Oiler fans just shove the 'Oilers hockey' arguement down our throats, and yeah, we're sick of it.

kruezer is offline  
Old
01-13-2004, 10:14 PM
  #16
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kruezer
I know I've had this talk with you before, and its not like the Flames never trap, but step back from the rivarly for a second. Are they that incredibly boring? Do they not forecheck? Maybe they don't score quite as much as other teams, they could really use one more finisher, but its not like their Carolina in that regards. The thing that bothers us Flame fans on this thread and many others is that if we ever get ahead in the standings Oiler fans just shove the 'Oilers hockey' arguement down our throats, and yeah, we're sick of it.
Oiler hockey is a dream. A dream that hockey should be played as an exhibition of skill. Any other style of play is an antithesis to that dream. All crtiticism of anything but Oiler's hockey is justified.

PS. Even the Oiler's no longer play Oiler hockey .

The Rage is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 10:29 PM
  #17
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
BUMP!

With all the threads about Salo "re-emergence" and the supposedly improved defence, I really think people should be looking more closely at game-by-game, and seeing what the problem and solutions really are.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 10:53 PM
  #18
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
AND COMING UP!------

The 3-goal game stats, which will show how much of a difference ONE MEASLEY GOAL EVERY 2 GAMES can make to a season. It doesn't take much either. And why 2 MORE GOOD PLAYERS are all we need for now.
Record in games with 3 goals scored: 3-2-3

3 wins: (TOR, PHI, ANA)
2 losses: (BOS, MON)
3 ties: (OTT, CMB, PHX)

If 3 or less goals are scored by the Oilers, their record is: 31GP-6W-18L-6T-1OTL

If 3 or more goals are scored: 21GP 14W-3L-4T

Pretty clear, isn't it? The aim of this team should be to average 3.5 goals in a substantial portion of their games, that's how they have success and that is the best formula for a winning Oilers team. It can be done and it should be done.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 11:07 PM
  #19
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 15,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Record in games with 3 goals scored: 3-2-3

3 wins: (TOR, PHI, ANA)
2 losses: (BOS, MON)
3 ties: (OTT, CMB, PHX)

If 3 or less goals are scored by the Oilers, their record is: 31GP-6W-18L-6T-1OTL

If 3 or more goals are scored: 21GP 14W-3L-4T

Pretty clear, isn't it? The aim of this team should be to average 3.5 goals in a substantial portion of their games, that's how they have success and that is the best formula for a winning Oilers team. It can be done and it should be done.
Yeah, but you could say that about every team in the NHL, I'll bet any team's record is awesome when they score 3 or more goals/game.

The #1 offensive team last year (Detriot) averaged only 3.28 goals/game for the entire year...so far this year the #1 offensive team (Detroit again) is averaging only 3.24 goals/game...yet you think the Oilers should have to average 3.5 goals for a substantial portion of their season in order to be successful? Unless they're planning on airlifting in Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom, Shanahan and increasing the budget by an astronomical amount...this has ZERO chance of happening.

A much easier path to success is for this team to cut down its goals against...the REAL reason it's sucking Calgary's exhaust fumes right now. Considering the budget this team is forced to adhere to, that's a more realistic venture.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
01-14-2004, 11:17 PM
  #20
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
Yeah, but you could say that about every team in the NHL, I'll bet any team's record is awesome when they score 3 or more goals/game.

The #1 offensive team last year (Detriot) averaged only 3.28 goals/game for the entire year...so far this year the #1 offensive team (Detroit again) is averaging only 3.24 goals/game...yet you think the Oilers should have to average 3.5 goals for a substantial portion of their season in order to be successful? Unless they're planning on airlifting in Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom, Shanahan and increasing the budget by an astronomical amount...this has ZERO chance of happening.

A much easier path to success is for this team to cut down its goals against...the REAL reason it's sucking Calgary's exhaust fumes right now. Considering the budget this team is forced to adhere to, that's a more realistic venture.

They don't have to, but it's the best and easiest way for this team to have success right now, and only a player or two makes the difference. It wouldn't be very hard at all for this team to average that many goals for say, 45-50 games, given an added offensive player or two and the coaching staff+system geared towards this goal, it would work and we'd be a much better team. Defensive stats may even improve as a result.

Next I'll do goals allowed.


Last edited by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1: 01-14-2004 at 11:22 PM.
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
01-15-2004, 10:43 AM
  #21
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
They don't have to, but it's the best and easiest way for this team to have success right now, and only a player or two makes the difference. It wouldn't be very hard at all for this team to average that many goals for say, 45-50 games, given an added offensive player or two and the coaching staff+system geared towards this goal, it would work and we'd be a much better team. Defensive stats may even improve as a result.

Next I'll do goals allowed.
Interesting comment by Digger. If Detroit, the #1 offensive team, is only averaging 3.28 goals per game, how do you propose that the Oilers top that to 3.5?

Master Lok is offline  
Old
01-15-2004, 11:33 AM
  #22
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neogeo69
Interesting comment by Digger. If Detroit, the #1 offensive team, is only averaging 3.28 goals per game, how do you propose that the Oilers top that to 3.5?
You don't have to average it for 82 games, that's the point.

Average it for 45-55 and you can still win enough games that you'll finish in a very good spot, because you won't lose all of the rest.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
01-15-2004, 01:43 PM
  #23
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 15,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
You don't have to average it for 82 games, that's the point.

Average it for 45-55 and you can still win enough games that you'll finish in a very good spot, because you won't lose all of the rest.
Here's the math :p


Record when scoring 3 or more: 14-3-4, 32 points /21 games =1.52 ppg.
Record when scoring 3 or less: 6-18-6-1, 19 points/31 games = 0.61 ppg.

Say they can average 3.5 gpg over 45 games, that's 158 goals (rounded up)
Now if they average 2.5 gpg over the remaining 37, that's 93 goals (rounded up)

Total comes to 251 goals, or 3.06 gpg...which would put them a hair over Colorado 3.05 gpg this year, and 3rd overall in scoring.

Now the points:

At 1.52 ppg, over 45 games that's around 68 points.
At 0.61 ppg over the remaining 37, they get around 23 points.

So going by this admittedly flawed statistical analysis, the Oilers would need to become a top 3-5 ranked offensive team on par with Colorado (3.06 gpg last year, 3.05 this year) in order to get 91 points and squeak into 7th or 8th.

Problem is...last year they had 92 points, and they did it with the 9th ranked offense and 19th ranked defense...so they've proven they can get over 90 without an elite offensive attack. The difference?

Last year their defense was ranked 19th; this year it's currently ranked 25th. Their offense is ranked 12th. Interestingly enough, the Oilers are giving up 2.68 gpg right now, which sucks at 25th but would've been good enough to be tied for 14th overall last year, and markedly better than the Oilers' previous average of 2.80 gpg. Obviously, goals have been somewhat harder to come by this year for the entire league.

I still maintain that cutting the goals against would be easier than trying to recreate firewagon hockey on a shoestring budget. If offense was so easy to produce, why do so many teams play the trap?

It's a lot easier to burn a house down than to build one.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
01-15-2004, 02:13 PM
  #24
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
Here's the math :p


Record when scoring 3 or more: 14-3-4, 32 points /21 games =1.52 ppg.
Record when scoring 3 or less: 6-18-6-1, 19 points/31 games = 0.61 ppg.

Say they can average 3.5 gpg over 45 games, that's 158 goals (rounded up)
Now if they average 2.5 gpg over the remaining 37, that's 93 goals (rounded up)

Total comes to 251 goals, or 3.06 gpg...which would put them a hair over Colorado 3.05 gpg this year, and 3rd overall in scoring.

Now the points:

At 1.52 ppg, over 45 games that's around 68 points.
At 0.61 ppg over the remaining 37, they get around 23 points.

So going by this admittedly flawed statistical analysis, the Oilers would need to become a top 3-5 ranked offensive team on par with Colorado (3.06 gpg last year, 3.05 this year) in order to get 91 points and squeak into 7th or 8th.

Problem is...last year they had 92 points, and they did it with the 9th ranked offense and 19th ranked defense...so they've proven they can get over 90 without an elite offensive attack. The difference?

Last year their defense was ranked 19th; this year it's currently ranked 25th. Their offense is ranked 12th. Interestingly enough, the Oilers are giving up 2.68 gpg right now, which sucks at 25th but would've been good enough to be tied for 14th overall last year, and markedly better than the Oilers' previous average of 2.80 gpg. Obviously, goals have been somewhat harder to come by this year for the entire league.

I still maintain that cutting the goals against would be easier than trying to recreate firewagon hockey on a shoestring budget. If offense was so easy to produce, why do so many teams play the trap?

It's a lot easier to burn a house down than to build one.
Good stats, but I believe those numbers are slightly skewed, and do not take into account what would happen with the style change, personnel change, etc. As you said, it's admittedly flawed, but so is mine. This is a very philosphical debate that can probably not be agreed upon. I don't see a need to play firewagon hockey, merely to improve execution and make sure of a consistent pressure forecheck. I did say why teams won't play this style, and that's because they're coaches are scared (job security) to take risks. It looks better for a coach playing the ugly game many teams do today, even though alot of those teams have ZERO chance at winning the cup because of it.

In my way of thinking, if they could average 3.5 over 50 games, and 2.5 in the rest, they'd get much closer to 95-99 points, but again that's a matter of large debate and statistical games can be played. There's also the whole guessing game of what it will take to get in, which is so utterly complicated it's ugly.

My original point of this thread was to make the case I've made all year: When we score, we win, and we don't have to change much at all to increase the amount we do that, because most nights our problem is either style or execution, not lack of ability. I don't see many 2-1 wins that alot of people around here seem to believe we're capable of. We're clearly not. And besides, do you really wanna kill your goalie?

Thanks for the analysis digger, it always helps to have someone on the other end critiquing this for me, so I can make it better.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline  
Old
01-15-2004, 02:18 PM
  #25
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 15,037
vCash: 500
No problem...always willing to be your foil.

Digger12 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 10:11 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.