Post-Game Talk: Unsatisfactory win?

[McDoused]

Exactly this.

If you demand a full 60 minutes every game then do not expect a strong playoffs

No player shows this as much as Drai. Like that OT vs Colorado and in a lot of games, he gets a lot of heat for slacking or trying bad gambles. And yet, no one is better when the games truly matter

Last game didn't matter

I wonder how many posters go to work every day and give it 100%? It's human nature to relax and not push yourself when you don't have to. Conserve your physical and mental energy for when you need it.

 

[VainGretzky]

Yup. Absolutely no games mailed in, ever.

Edmonton Oilers vs. Hartford Whalers Box Score: February 12, 1984 | Hockey-Reference.com

Get the latest box score updates on the Edmonton Oilers vs. Hartford Whalers game played on February 12, 1984 on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

11 -0 game I don't even have to hit the link remember that game well ranks up here with the trouncing the Oilers took first time ever in Manhattan

 

[Fourier]

We were spoiled last season.

This is more like what a “normal” good PP looks like.

Not even a good one, but an excellent one. Last year's pp was simply insane. And as was pointed out earlier, I firmly believe it created an impression with the refs that the threshold to call a penalty against the opposition needed to be high. And I think that impression lingers today.

 

[Fourier]

Actually, I was around during those glorious times, and I remember the Oilers coming out and crushing teams in the first period or 2 and then coasting, allowing the opposition to get some premium chances and some goals. When you're scoring 4 hundred and some goals in a season, there was not a lot of mailing in. Different team, different times.

I see this differently. There were a lot of nights back then when the team seemed less interested playing weaker teams. Sather would rag on guys like Messier and Coffey all the time. If you compare the two teams, both had a generational talent. McDavid has off games but he seldom looks disinterested. Gretzky himself seldom "mailed it in". The difference was that Gretzky was almost unstoppable. He could almost always beat a bad team by himself. Moreover, the incredible depth of the talent on that team was simply hard to overcome for a weaker team. That is not the case today with a guy like McDavid. The salary cap has created a league with a lot of parity and systems play can keep a top player under control if the rest of the team is underwhelming.

 

[Fourier]

I get your point.

But those team also showed up and would win when it mattered. They realized early on against the Islanders, they needed to change to win.

The current team hasn’t shown the ability to win when it matters. So I don’t think it’s comparable personally.

That team also had 7 future Hall of Famers as well as a guy like Tikkanen. And their depth guys were typically excellent. Need a little help. Add a late 20's Mark Napier, two time 40 goal scorer, as a depth winger or a Kent Nilsson, one of the most talented players of his generation.

You will never see a team like the 80's Oilers in today's NHL. Their salaries in today's dollars might well be $110M+

 

[ZJuice]

Its even more weird considering it wasnt a divisional game and it was against a team in the eastern conference.

People just looking for reasons to be upset.

I am allowed to be disappointed. It's not like the players were jumping up and down on the ice either!

 

[bone]

Just gonna mention that even in the 80's nearly every march there would be comments about the team not playing the right way, they don't look focus, not looking their best, trepidation. Then around 1-2 games before playoffs that team would hit a switch and they were in playoff gear. Or they'd hide it till first game of playoffs.

If I've learned anything in following NHL hockey for more than half a century you can't tell how the team will come out in playoffs. Or what they will accomplish. Kings barely made playoffs in 2012, and they won the cup from an 8th place spot.

Blues were the worst team in the league for awhile in 2018, actually 31st place for awhile, and they won the cup.

The 90 Oilers were basically a .500 team in regular seaosn and won the cup. Not only that but after the first round they were unstoppable.

Just last year Panthers made it all the way to the cup final despite being 8th place.

A few years ago during Covid years Habs made it all the way to the final rolling through opposition.


Just saying all this because its probably not worth our energy worrying too much about how the team is looking at any point in March. Most of us go there from time to time but overall its not indicative. Invariably you find out what kind of player verve and push there will be, and how engaged and cohesive the team is once playoffs start. Until then its mostly guessing.


Repent sinner repent!

Even look at Edmonton down the stretch last year. Put up their longest winning streak since the early 2000s, points in 15 straight games, playing the best defense they'd played in possibly decades. Then Game 1 comes along and back to allowing 3+ goals almost every game.

I'm not going to worry about anything but their health in the last ten games as the mission will be to survive a hellish pace for a schedule in these last 29 days. Win enough to keep 2nd place which likely only needs to be .500 hockey. Busting ass and risking injury for what likely will be meaningless points, no way. Focus on testing lines, spread out the playing minutes, and turn it up for Game 1.

 

[Stoneman89]

I see this differently. There were a lot of nights back then when the team seemed less interested playing weaker teams. Sather would rag on guys like Messier and Coffey all the time. If you compare the two teams, both had a generational talent. McDavid has off games but he seldom looks disinterested. Gretzky himself seldom "mailed it in". The difference was that Gretzky was almost unstoppable. He could almost always beat a bad team by himself. Moreover, the incredible depth of the talent on that team was simply hard to overcome for a weaker team. That is not the case today with a guy like McDavid. The salary cap has created a league with a lot of parity and systems play can keep a top player under control if the rest of the team is underwhelming.

Guess you missed the part of my post where I said "different times".

That team also had 7 future Hall of Famers as well as a guy like Tikkanen. And their depth guys were typically excellent. Need a little help. Add a late 20's Mark Napier, two time 40 goal scorer, as a depth winger or a Kent Nilsson, one of the most talented players of his generation.

You will never see a team like the 80's Oilers in today's NHL. Their salaries in today's dollars might well be $110M+

Like I said in my post, "different team, different times."

 

[bellagiobob]

You will never see a team like the 80's Oilers in today's NHL. Their salaries in today's dollars might well be $110M+

You mean like Vegas?

 

[bone]

You mean like Vegas?

Lol. Good point, but Vegas ain't got no Gretzky, Messier or Coffey. Doubtful they have a Fuhr either. Only goes to show that team may have been even $125M+ in today dollars.

 

[nally]

Somewhat. He was hideous tonight along with Bouchard, it seems like they're both lazy in the same games and play like they give a shit in the same games too. In a lot of ways, the Oilers go as those two go.

I honestly think that a portion of the regular season games bore this team. They're not wired to give an honest effort every night and they're pretty much locked into the 2 seed in the division so I can sort of understand it being difficult for them to get up for games against lesser opponents. Honestly, it's hard for me as a fan to get pumped for these games as well but I'm also not paid millions to put an entertaining product out there haha.

I get that, but if we win our games in hand, we are only 2 pts back of the Canucks...sooo

 

[Drivesaitl]

I get your point.

But those team also showed up and would win when it mattered. They realized early on against the Islanders, they needed to change to win.

The current team hasn’t shown the ability to win when it matters. So I don’t think it’s comparable personally.

Did they? To a point, yes. Nobody in Edmonton in 82, trust me, were saying that the Oilers had changed what they need to, to win. 83 came up lacking as well.

But this ignores that team were all world, and had 7 players that were among best in world. That team had the best Centers, the best winngers, the best D, some of the best goalies. What didn't they have?

That was a juggernaut. Post cap teams like that tend not to occur.

No team compares to what that Oilers team was. Historically the only team that compares in my lifetime is the vaunted 70's Habs. Nobody else. Not even the Islanders.

The current Oilers are dealing with a very different NHL where several contenders exist and with a league parity wherein any team that makes playoffs can go all the way. This means the competition is fierce. Back in the day when the Oilers were winning cups there were only a few teams that can even mount a battle against the Oilers. The Oilers division now even is much harder task than it was back then.

 

[Drivesaitl]

That team also had 7 future Hall of Famers as well as a guy like Tikkanen. And their depth guys were typically excellent. Need a little help. Add a late 20's Mark Napier, two time 40 goal scorer, as a depth winger or a Kent Nilsson, one of the most talented players of his generation.

You will never see a team like the 80's Oilers in today's NHL. Their salaries in today's dollars might well be $110M+

Ken Linseman as well. Said the same as you. A team like that will never exist in salary cap era. We were blessed seeing the best team on Earth that had half a lineup of allstar players including several of the best players on Earth at their respective positions.

 

[bellagiobob]

I wonder how many posters go to work every day and give it 100%? It's human nature to relax and not push yourself when you don't have to. Conserve your physical and mental energy for when you need it.

For all the talk about how the team doesn't get up for crappy teams, all that matters in the end is the result. Believe the Oilers are something like 20-2 this year against the bottom 10 teams.

 

[Stoneman89]

Did they? To a point, yes. Nobody in Edmonton in 82, trust me, were saying that the Oilers had changed what they need to, to win. 83 came up lacking as well.

But this ignores that team were all world, and had 7 players that were among best in world. That team had the best Centers, the best winngers, the best D, some of the best goalies. What didn't they have?

That was a juggernaut. Post cap teams like that tend not to occur.

No team compares to what that Oilers team was. Historically the only team that compares in my lifetime is the vaunted 70's Habs. Nobody else. Not even the Islanders.

The current Oilers are dealing with a very different NHL where several contenders exist and with a league parity wherein any team that makes playoffs can go all the way. This means the competition is fierce. Back in the day when the Oilers were winning cups there were only a few teams that can even mount a battle against the Oilers. The Oilers division now even is much harder task than it was back then.

Absolutely correct. But you still get some people on here bring up the one off 11-0 loss against the Whalers and using that as a standard for that team, and then comparing it to this team and this era.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Even look at Edmonton down the stretch last year. Put up their longest winning streak since the early 2000s, points in 15 straight games, playing the best defense they'd played in possibly decades. Then Game 1 comes along and back to allowing 3+ goals almost every game.

I'm not going to worry about anything but their health in the last ten games as the mission will be to survive a hellish pace for a schedule in these last 29 days. Win enough to keep 2nd place which likely only needs to be .500 hockey. Busting ass and risking injury for what likely will be meaningless points, no way. Focus on testing lines, spread out the playing minutes, and turn it up for Game 1.

I think as fans we internalize the worry that Connor McDavid and Drai may or may not establish their SC legacy. Thats the existential angst Oilers fans experience. So that even when we're winning that is lurking there in the mix. No salve except one will fix that.

 

[guymez]

Absolutely correct. But you still get some people on here bring up the one off 11-0 loss against the Whalers and using that as a standard for that team, and then comparing it to this team and this era.

Sneaky dig.
To be fair I wasnt comparing eras at all.
Just highlighting the fact that a very good Oilers team can (and has been) be a no show for a game against an inferior opponent.

 

[Fourier]

Guess you missed the part of my post where I said "different times".


Like I said in my post, "different team, different times."

Actually I didn't. But my response was directed at what I thought was your comment that the 80's teams did not take many nights off. I simply said my experience was different. A group of us would meet under the stands after each period and the conversation was often not so different than it is on here.

You mean like Vegas?

Touche. But the + in my post may be fairly big.

 

[bone]

I think as fans we internalize the worry that Connor McDavid and Drai may or may not establish their SC legacy. Thats the existential angst Oilers fans experience. So that even when we're winning that is lurking there in the mix. No salve except one will fix that.

100%. I'm one of the group concerned that not winning a cup while still having the two of them is a huge risk to losing both and experiencing another decade or more of shit.

That's why as long as they stay firmly entrenched in the 2nd spot, I'm less concerned about game to game performance and moreso that they gather as much intel as possible about these players for Knoblach to demonstrate whether he has the chops to run the bench with this group into a serious run in the playoffs.

If suddenly LA and/or Vegas catch them or if they catch Vancouver along the way, maybe then I put more emphasis on each game/point, but for now we're like at 75%+ chance of being the 2nd seed so make decisions assuming that's where we'll be unless that drops to 50% or below. I don't want to run all the players into the ground like last year chasing the dream of 1st place only to fall a couple points short again.

 

[Fourier]

Sneaky dig.
To be fair I wasnt comparing eras at all.
Just highlighting the fact that a very good Oilers team can (and has been) be a no show for a game against an inferior opponent.

In 84-85 the Oilers went 3-3-2 vs the Canucks. A team that ended the year with a 25-46-9 record.

 

[guymez]

In 84-85 the Oilers went 3-3-2 vs the Canucks. A team that ended the year with a 25-46-9 record.

Different era?

 

[Fourier]

I think as fans we internalize the worry that Connor McDavid and Drai may or may not establish their SC legacy. Thats the existential angst Oilers fans experience. So that even when we're winning that is lurking there in the mix. No salve except one will fix that.

Since Nov 10th, the first game after the brutal 12 game start, the team is 1st in points and point percentage3rd in GF/gm with 3.72 GF/gm (Colorado is at 3.79), 5th best GA/gm at 2.52, 3rd in pp% at 27.3%, 5th best pk at 83.0%, third best in ShA/gm and 4th best in ShA/gm. They are also third best in CF% 5 vs 5, 5th in SCF% and second in xGF%. And yet when I come here it often feels like doom and gloom reigns supreme. I think it is PTSD from so many years of disappointment.

 

[Stoneman89]

Sneaky dig.
To be fair I wasnt comparing eras at all.
Just highlighting the fact that a very good Oilers team can (and has been) be a no show for a game against an inferior opponent.

Not against you at all, bud. You agreed with me in general and then brought that up as one example. You get it. There was another poster
who used it exclusively, and simply failed to understand the difference in teams and era.. Cheers.

In 84-85 the Oilers went 3-3-2 vs the Canucks. A team that ended the year with a 25-46-9 record.

An 8 game sample. Nice try.

 

[Stoneman89]

Actually I didn't. But my response was directed at what I thought was your comment that the 80's teams did not take many nights off. I simply said my experience was different. A group of us would meet under the stands after each period and the conversation was often not so different than it is on here.


Touche. But the + in my post may be fairly big.

What your're not understanding is my point, that even when they "took the odd night off", their talent was so superior and the league was so spread out talent wise, they could still pull away and crush teams. And yes, I had season tickets and remember those nights. As was pointed out by another poster, there were 7 hall of famers on that team, and they could beat you in their sleep most nights. Today, the league is so close, that taking a night off can be the difference between winning and losing. I'm not sure how anyone can argue these points.

 

[Fourier]

Not against you at all, bud. You agreed with me in general and then brought that up as one example. There was another poster who used it exclusively, and in a snide way.


An 8 game sample. Nice try.

The whole debate from my side was whether or not the dynasty team took nights off vs weaker teams. Here is the quote I challenged:

When you're scoring 4 hundred and some goals in a season, there was not a lot of mailing in.

This is evidence that even one of the best teams of all time did exactly that coming out .500 in an 8 game series vs one of the weakest teams in the league. That same year they went 4-3-1 vs LA, another mediocre division rival, and went 1-1-1 vs Pittsburgh and the Rangers. They also lost games to NJ, Hartford and Toronto. That's a total of 10 out of 20 losses to teams in the bottom part of the League. Of course sometimes they ran teams like this out of the building. But there were lost of nights where they just went through the motions as a team when they played weak opposition. As I said though one difference is that Gretzky on many of those nights would simply win the game almost on his own.