Does anybody still think that Tmac was the problem, rather than the team itself?

Cypress

Registered User
Mar 4, 2018
571
341
I don't think goaltending has been any different really throughout the season. The defense structure improved under hitchcock, but then regressed when we lost two of our best d-men. The replacements couldn't shoulder as much weight to keep the door shut, and our goalies once again were exposed to too many high quality chances. Gives the Boxscore appearance of goaltending being worse, but really the difference is what's happening in front of them. What's changed is the quality of defence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panda Bear and PGW

Stoneman89

Registered User
Feb 8, 2008
27,204
21,401
I don't think goaltending has been any different really throughout the season. The defense structure improved under hitchcock, but then regressed when we lost two of our best d-men. The replacements couldn't shoulder as much weight to keep the door shut, and our goalies once again were exposed to too many high quality chances. Gives the Boxscore appearance of goaltending being worse, but really the difference is what's happening in front of them. What's changed is the quality of defence.

Maybe you were out of town for the first few weeks, because Talbot was absolute garbage. It wasn't until many games had passed that Koski got his first start, and then sporadically until Hitch put him in for most of the games. He was very hot during that streak, but has cooled off a fair bit, as has the team.
 

Cypress

Registered User
Mar 4, 2018
571
341
Maybe you were out of town for the first few weeks, because Talbot was absolute garbage. It wasn't until many games had passed that Koski got his first start, and then sporadically until Hitch put him in for most of the games. He was very hot during that streak, but has cooled off a fair bit, as has the team.
Other than Talbot's decent play early in the season, he has been mediocre ever since, including under Hitchcock. Koskinen started slow for a couple games, but has been consistently good since.

Talbot has been mediocre for the most part, and koskinen has been solid for the most part. What changed is the defence system under hitch, and then the loss of two top 4 defencemen.
 

Stoneman89

Registered User
Feb 8, 2008
27,204
21,401
Other than Talbot's decent play early in the season, he has been mediocre ever since, including under Hitchcock. Koskinen started slow for a couple games, but has been consistently good since.

Talbot has been mediocre for the most part, and koskinen has been solid for the most part. What changed is the defence system under hitch, and then the loss of two top 4 defencemen.


How do figure Koskinen started out slowly? He won his first 3 starts, including a shutout.
 

Jamin

Registered User
Aug 25, 2009
4,924
778
Hitch could lose every game and still be better for his pressers. Feel like I learn something from them and get an insight into the team, maybe something I didnt notice while watching.

Vs grumpy gum chewing "im out of ideas," "i dont know whats wrong" etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cypress

Soundwave

Registered User
Mar 1, 2007
72,141
27,826
The whole "well maybe the team is secretly good, and McLellan is just holding them back!" line of logic has been proven fairly bunk though I will say that.

It's plainly obvious now that the roster is extremely poorly built and even Hitchcock acknowledges he doesn't have enough to work with here.

Hitch is better at playing a tigher defensive system, because he along with Darryl Sutter are probably the best in the world at that.

But really no one pre/post McLellan is magically hugely outperforming. Lucic still sucks, Benning still sucks, Nurse is still all over the place, Spooner sucks, Puljujarvi still sucks in bottom line results, Talbot continues to suck, Khaira is the one guy who really seems improved, but that's about it.

The same guys -- McDavid, Draisaitl, RNH, Chiasson, Klefbom, and Koskinen were doing the bulk of the work just as they were under Todd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burnt Biscuits

nuck

Schrodingers Cat
Aug 18, 2005
11,339
2,422
The club looks better now even in the losses. Todd had no solutions, he seemed like a leaf in the wind. One "FFS dude!" moment after another and I don't get that with Hitchcock. I was not a Hitch supporter based on his last two clubs but the players (except maybe Looch) don't seem to be as lost. We all knew the club lacked forward depth and that hasn't changed. We are desperate for Alex Chiasson to save our butts, who would have predicted that? Not much depth, so they need to be healthy but this is a playoff club. I don't see TMac taking the team to the playoffs under any circumstances. Not every coach can succeed with every lineup, and Hitchcock is the better fit.
 

Stoneman89

Registered User
Feb 8, 2008
27,204
21,401
The club looks better now even in the losses. Todd had no solutions, he seemed like a leaf in the wind. One "FFS dude!" moment after another and I don't get that with Hitchcock. I was not a Hitch supporter based on his last two clubs but the players (except maybe Looch) don't seem to be as lost. We all knew the club lacked forward depth and that hasn't changed. We are desperate for Alex Chiasson to save our butts, who would have predicted that? Not much depth, so they need to be healthy but this is a playoff club. I don't see TMac taking the team to the playoffs under any circumstances. Not every coach can succeed with every lineup, and Hitchcock is the better fit.

First off, I think Hitch is a better coach, and it was time for TM to move on.

Saying that, TM had 3 plus years to deal with the crap he had at his disposal. Even managed to take them one year to the 2nd round of the playoffs on the strength of his goalie. But that length of time will wear a man down and cause him to throw up his hands, with little to offer for solutions, as you say. Hitch just got started and players ears are always perked up when a new voice arrives. Give him the same amount of time dealing with the same crap and I bet he eventually has the same reaction.
 

nabob

Big Daddy Kane
Aug 3, 2005
34,291
20,669
HF boards
Sorry, Klef and Russell have been solid from the start of the year. Benning has been trash, and getting worse. The day they move him will be a good day. Khaira has been getting better, but he did this last year. Had some good stretches and some bad ones - young player. Same with Puljo. The bottom group outside of the top 4 have really nosedived. They were contributing at least a bit earlier. Now, it's zip, nadda, nothing. Not even some chances generated. Lucic has completely gone in to the tank. Brodziak not far behind. Earlier in the year, at least Reider was getting some assists. He doesn't have a point in 15 games now. All I can think of off the top of my head as well, but my fingers are also getting tired.

You asked for players that improved. I gave them. They have all shown improvement under Hitch. That’s simple facts. Then you add in the better system, line matching and willingness to make lineup changes based on what makes sense at the time and you see a better team on the ice. You can disagree all you want but it’s very obvious to anyone and everyone that Hitch is a superior coach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TB12

nabob

Big Daddy Kane
Aug 3, 2005
34,291
20,669
HF boards
First off, I think Hitch is a better coach, and it was time for TM to move on.

Saying that, TM had 3 plus years to deal with the crap he had at his disposal. Even managed to take them one year to the 2nd round of the playoffs on the strength of his goalie. But that length of time will wear a man down and cause him to throw up his hands, with little to offer for solutions, as you say. Hitch just got started and players ears are always perked up when a new voice arrives. Give him the same amount of time dealing with the same crap and I bet he eventually has the same reaction.

TMac had three plus years and a very good club innhis first season. He managed to make the team worse with his coaching the longer he was here. Think about that. He, as a coach, made the team and players worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: North

t0nedeff

Registered User
Jun 29, 2010
9,985
4,198
This team would be bottom of the barrel if he didn't get canned and he'd still be playing Talbot 90 percent of the time.
 

rboomercat90

Registered User
Mar 24, 2013
14,589
8,763
Edmonton
I never thought McLellan was the core problem. But I can understand Chiarelli firing him when he did and bringing in Hitch when he did. Hitch is a great motivator (which McLellan wasn't, by reputation anyway), and by bringing in the new guy with the big track-record Chiarelli may have saved his job until this spring, at least.

I must say, I was not in favor of firing McLellan (as my post history will show). It's not because I thought McLellan was doing a great job -- his attachment to Lucic and Benning continues to confound the universe -- but because the Oilers have simply fired too many coaches.

1979 - 1991
2 Head Coaches (not counting Bryan Watson, who lasted 18 games)
5 Stanley Cups
8 1st/2nd-place finishes
7 Conference Series appearances

2008 - 2018
8 Head Coaches
0 Stanley Cups
1 2nd-place finish
0 Conference Series appearances
I don’t see the logic in keeping bad coaches because you’ve fired too many already. There have been grumblings about every coach we’ve had going back to Quinn (disappointing seasons do that) but the only two that the fans wanted fired immediately were Eakins and Mclellan. It was painfully obvious both of them were done here. Eakins, because he was incompetent and should never have been hired in the first place and Mclellan, because it looked like he quit or at the very least had completely run out of ideas on how to get his team to perform. The situation had become toxic for both those guys and yet some were still trotting out the “too many coaches fired already” line with both of them. What was going to be gained keeping either at the point they were let go? If your coach needs to go, get rid of him. Just make sure it’s for the right reasons.

Upper management is to blame for the coaching carousel yet all of those responsible are still around minus Tambellini. If they’d have done a better job hiring or even had better reasons for firing, the list wouldn’t be nearly as long as it is. This is yet another in the long list of organizational failings.
 

Oilslick941611

slapshot into the empty net...utterly irrelevant
Jul 4, 2006
13,715
12,517
Ottawa
So now that we have lost 5 in a row, and are no longer getting vezina calibre goaltending, which was the only reason we were winning games, is there anybody who thinks Hitch is better than Tmac? This is a terrible, TERRIBLE, team, and prime Bowman wouldn't make this sorry sack team any good.

There were a lot of people buying into the idea that our pathetic play was due to Tmac, which just simply isn't true. This team is not anywhere CLOSE to go good enough, and no coach will change that.


It hasn't been the coach the last 5 times either... and most smart people were saying that from the start.
 

Took a pill in Sbisa

2showToffoliIwascool
Apr 23, 2004
16,259
6,976
Australia
Other than Talbot's decent play early in the season, he has been mediocre ever since, including under Hitchcock. Koskinen started slow for a couple games, but has been consistently good since.

Talbot has been mediocre for the most part, and koskinen has been solid for the most part. What changed is the defence system under hitch, and then the loss of two top 4 defencemen.

Why do you keep using the word mediocre to describe Talbot?

Mediocre is .912 SV%. Talbot is at .892. When comparing to the other 30 NHL starters, Talbot would rank 31st. Including Koskinen, 32nd. Every single NHL starter and literally over half the leagues backups are out performing him this season.

In what world is that mediocre? Anything less than horrible, awful or abysmal is selling him short.
 

Burnt Biscuits

Registered User
May 2, 2010
9,164
3,179
TMac had three plus years and a very good club innhis first season. He managed to make the team worse with his coaching the longer he was here. Think about that. He, as a coach, made the team and players worse.
TMac improved the teams goal differential by 43 in his first season with the team and by 77 goals in his 2nd year with the team. That club in his first season here was not good it was eerily similar to the club that the year before had a -85 goal differential and I don't care that Connor McDavid got added to the team 18 year olds aren't going to fix that level of bad as a rookie. In general many of our best players were very young it was a team pretty much devoid of quality veteran leadership and who had developed bad habits from years of being awful and 2 years of Eakins.

Who are the 5 most critical players to the teams success today? IMO McDavid, Drai, RNH, Klefbom, and Koskinen and 4 of those 5 players improved quite a bit under McLellan, you might say McDavid gets there on his own, but you never know for sure and it's not like McLellan didn't also do a good job developing C's in his time with San Jose. McLellan's time with the team ran its course, but lets not act like we didn't benefit in some way from him being here, we've had enough bad coaches that you'd think people could appreciate a coach who's at worst probably average.
 

Stoneman89

Registered User
Feb 8, 2008
27,204
21,401
You asked for players that improved. I gave them. They have all shown improvement under Hitch. That’s simple facts. Then you add in the better system, line matching and willingness to make lineup changes based on what makes sense at the time and you see a better team on the ice. You can disagree all you want but it’s very obvious to anyone and everyone that Hitch is a superior coach.


Not simple facts. Your opinion. I gave you mine. And more players have regressed this year. A simple look at the points totals for everyone not named McDavid, Nuge, Drai and Chiasson confirms that. And once again,, the issue and topic is not who is the better coach. Hitch is, and I've stated so several times. But continue to move the target of the discussion.
 

Stoneman89

Registered User
Feb 8, 2008
27,204
21,401
TMac had three plus years and a very good club innhis first season. He managed to make the team worse with his coaching the longer he was here. Think about that. He, as a coach, made the team and players worse.


A very good club his first season? What planet are you on? McDavid was a rookie and injured for 1/2 the year. The defence was a disaster, Klefbom missed most of the year, they had Drai basically in his rookie year, along with Hall and Eberle who stunk towards the end of the year. Not to mention Talbot struggled for the first 2 months, which is what really sunk their ship.
 

McShogun99

Registered User
Aug 30, 2009
17,786
13,176
Edmonton
Scotty Bowman would have trouble coaching this lineup to a consistent playoff spot. We only make the playoffs if Mcdavid and whoever our starting goalie is goes supernova.
 

Dohilers

Registered User
Dec 18, 2011
189
121
BC
I don't think McLellan is a bad coach. All coaches have their biases which cloud their judgment because they develop relationships with players. They have guys they had success playing in certain roles, who, for whatever reason, are no longer successful in those roles, but the coach keeps the guy there out of loyalty. A new coach comes in with no biases and forms their own opinions, seeing things as they are, and make adjustments that are easier to see from the outside looking in. That's why Koskinen is now the starter and Lucic is on the 3rd/4th line.

With the lack of skill and scoring depth on the wings and defense, this roster needed a coach who focuses primarily on playing tight defensive hockey, which is Hitchcock's approach. If the roster was built with more speed and skill outside of the top line, McLellan would be a better person to lead the group than Hitchcock.

Almost every coach at the top of the NHL standings has been fired at least once. Some have tried and failed multiple times. In life, you fail, you learn from your failures, you adapt, and grow. McLellan will be back in the NHL and give himself another opportunity to succeed elsewhere. Same with Eakins. He doesn't have the same quality resume as McLellan and has a longer route to get back to the NHL. Eakins took on the chin, got dropped, picked himself up, dusted himself off, took a step back, and is adopting the lessons he learned to become better at his job, so he can earn another opportunity in the future. I wish both of them much success in the future.
 

McShogun99

Registered User
Aug 30, 2009
17,786
13,176
Edmonton
I don't think McLellan is a bad coach. All coaches have their biases which cloud their judgment because they develop relationships with players. They have guys they had success playing in certain roles, who, for whatever reason, are no longer successful in those roles, but the coach keeps the guy there out of loyalty. A new coach comes in with no biases and forms their own opinions, seeing things as they are, and make adjustments that are easier to see from the outside looking in. That's why Koskinen is now the starter and Lucic is on the 3rd/4th line.

With the lack of skill and scoring depth on the wings and defense, this roster needed a coach who focuses primarily on playing tight defensive hockey, which is Hitchcock's approach. If the roster was built with more speed and skill outside of the top line, McLellan would be a better person to lead the group than Hitchcock.

Almost every coach at the top of the NHL standings has been fired at least once. Some have tried and failed multiple times. In life, you fail, you learn from your failures, you adapt, and grow. McLellan will be back in the NHL and give himself another opportunity to succeed elsewhere. Same with Eakins. He doesn't have the same quality resume as McLellan and has a longer route to get back to the NHL. Eakins took on the chin, got dropped, picked himself up, dusted himself off, took a step back, and is adopting the lessons he learned to become better at his job, so he can earn another opportunity in the future. I wish both of them much success in the future.

I'll always have a soft spot for Eakins. Without him we wouldn't have Draisaitl and Mcdavid on the team.
 

Dohilers

Registered User
Dec 18, 2011
189
121
BC
I'll always have a soft spot for Eakins. Without him we wouldn't have Draisaitl and Mcdavid on the team.
I definitely love that his worst work helped the team land those two, but I think those failures are what motivates him right now. Most people would have just packed it in and walked away after such a disastrous start to an NHL head coaching career, but he's learning from his mistakes and is determined to get better and earn another opportunity. Guys like that are usually the ones who end up succeeding in the long run.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->