Fire Ken Holland

[Gregsky99]

We heard this a lot from people when he was hired, but didn’t we find out he only worked with Nicholson on one team, or something like that? There wasn’t much to show they were “buddies”.

They worked together a lot for hockey Canada

 

[joestevens29]

A lot of our issues this year IMO have been the players themselves.

We were making too many large mistakes and somehow those mistakes always were ending up on the other team's skilled players. Even as bad as Ottawa was, they have guys that if you give them high quality chances they will score.

The other issue was all these bottom 6 forwards. You know maybe we didn't have the best personnel on paper, but my god there was no one outside of Archibald doing anything to actually deserve to be in the NHL.

 

[Seachd]

They worked together a lot for hockey Canada

So it looks like Holland was on 4 teams for Hockey Canada while Nicholson was there.

Still seems like quite a stretch to not only assume they were “buddies”, but also that that’s the only reason he was hired.

 

[CupofOil]

So... in your opinion the extreme point of saying that wanting Holland fired after a terrible preplayoffs and a straight up brutal start of the season is "the dumbest thing ever posted here" and you are trying to play the rational card?

Yes... Straight up

 

[GOilers88]

Yes... Straight up

The fact that he's basing the stance on 4 play in games, and a 3-6 start for a total of a 13 game sample size to base the extreme opinion on shows me why he doesn't understand your take on it.

 

[CupofOil]

The fact that he's basing the stance on 4 play in games, and a 3-6 start for a total of a 13 game sample size to base the extreme opinion on shows me why he doesn't understand your take on it.

And largely ignoring (or minimizing) the 71 game sample size prior to the 13 games and the 13 game sample size after.

 

[Barrsy]

This team is objectively worse than last year, and on par with the failures that Peter Chiarelli built. Holland is the one to blame for nearly every factor that has led us to this point, from the awful goaltending to the poor depth on D to our dinosaur of a coach still having a job.

It’s time for Katz to step in before McDavid demands a trade. He’s wasting his career here with each passing game.

Clueless

 

[Aerchon]

Yes... Straight up

The fact that he's basing the stance on 4 play in games, and a 3-6 start for a total of a 13 game sample size to base the extreme opinion on shows me why he doesn't understand your take on it.

In those 13 games 4 of them represented basically the majority of a regular season. Invalidating what was a very good shortened regular season. The 3 and 6 start represented 16% of a season and what is typically an almost insurmountable deficit to overcome.

To each their own but you guys are making me laugh pretty hard. I think this thread is taking a scenic boat ride on the river deNile.

 

[CornKicker]

i mean it is kinda weird that a team that had ~25% turnover from the roster last season, which was cut short, took 10 or so games to gel and find their chemistry. im not going to lie i thought they would be 22-0 by now with a 100GF and 0GA but at least they are kinda showing improvement.

 

[GOilers88]

In those 13 games 4 of them represented basically the majority of a regular season. Invalidating what was a very good shortened regular season. The 3 and 6 start represented 16% of a season and what is typically an almost insurmountable deficit to overcome.

To each their own but you guys are making me laugh pretty hard. I think this thread is taking a scenic boat ride on the river deNile.

Shortened season or not, you just cannot reasonably expect a team chalk full of new faces to come out firing on all cylinders and be completely in sync with each other given there's no preseason or exhibition games. The exact same thing happened last year on the ice and on these boards.

Now add on the fact that the team was running with one lone NHL goaltender for three weeks and that the first couple weeks essentially were the preseason, it's easier to understand why things looked the way they did.

Also, how did 4 play in games represent the majority of a regular season? I don't understand this comment.

I don't agree that 9 games at the start of the year, in a full, or shortened season, are at all indicative of how a team is going to look moving forward. It's completely irrational and overreactive to think 3-6 is dooming the season given all the variables involved. Don't get me wrong, I hesitate to think of this team as a contender based on the fact we're only playing Canadian teams this year, but so far the proof has been in the pudding and you have to be happy about it.

 

[McOilers97]

Shortened season or not, you just cannot reasonably expect a team chalk full of new faces to come out firing on all cylinders and be completely in sync with each other given there's no preseason or exhibition games. The exact same thing happened last year on the ice and on these boards.

Now add on the fact that the team was running with one lone NHL goaltender for three weeks and that the first couple weeks essentially were the preseason, it's easier to understand why things looked the way they did.

Also, how did 4 play in games represent the majority of a regular season? I don't understand this comment.

I don't agree that 9 games at the start of the year, in a full, or shortened season, are at all indicative of how a team is going to look moving forward. It's completely irrational and overreactive to think 3-6 is dooming the season given all the variables involved. Don't get me wrong, I hesitate to think of this team as a contender based on the fact we're only playing Canadian teams this year, but so far the proof has been in the pudding and you have to be happy about it.

Isn't it generally even considered common wisdom by hockey analysts and the like that the first 10 games should basically be thrown out, for evaluation purposes? The start of a season is just so volatile, with various teams underachieving and overachieving unsustainably. And yet this guy is basing so much of his position on the 3-6 start, as well as 4 bubble games, which after such a long lay-off, were also basically the start of a new season.

 

[Gregsky99]

So it looks like Holland was on 4 teams for Hockey Canada while Nicholson was there.

Still seems like quite a stretch to not only assume they were “buddies”, but also that that’s the only reason he was hired.

Yeah. The teams he were on did fairly well from what I know. I also know that Holland wanted to help rebuild the red wings earlier but the owners told him he had to make the playoffs. So he had to keep selling off futures. He said something like that in an interview

 

[Panda Bear]

In those 13 games 4 of them represented basically the majority of a regular season. Invalidating what was a very good shortened regular season. The 3 and 6 start represented 16% of a season and what is typically an almost insurmountable deficit to overcome.

To each their own but you guys are making me laugh pretty hard. I think this thread is taking a scenic boat ride on the river deNile.

lol

 

[McOilers97]

In those 13 games 4 of them represented basically the majority of a regular season. Invalidating what was a very good shortened regular season. The 3 and 6 start represented 16% of a season and what is typically an almost insurmountable deficit to overcome.

To each their own but you guys are making me laugh pretty hard. I think this thread is taking a scenic boat ride on the river deNile.

Right, 1-3 in an odd-ball playoff situation and a 3-6 start are more significant than the 48-27-9 in the other games since Holland took over...

You're the one in denial here.

If this team flames out early in the playoffs a couple times, then there will be reason to be skeptical. Until then, we look like we're on the right track.

 

[Aerchon]

Lol.

Thanks for the laughs on this Friday guys. Nice way to finish the week. I really hope you don't actually believe what you are saying but I respect your freedom to post it.

Just as quick hypothetical. If we make the playoffs this year and get swept 4-0 will it be OK to be pissed and want Holland fired? Or would that also fall into the stupidest things ever on this board? Still not enough sample size? Where is this line of not only rational criticism but that will lol keep me from having such outlandish expectations?

Too funny.

@McOilers97 That is 110% hindsight. The point of rationalization was at the point of 13 extremely important games of extreme failure. Anyone can jump on a bandwagon after an awesome 11 and 2 stint and say we are awesome and we should have been patient... That is pure BS unless you have a very selective/short term memory. Or are pushing a very very obviously bias pro Holland agenda. You can't rewrite the past to suit your own perspective.

 

[McShogun99]

People also forget that Chicago had an identical record to Edmonton after the first 5 games of the season. Even now they’re 3rd in their division without Toew’s and Crawford. The veterans on that team hate losing and they have some good, young firepower.

 

[Panda Bear]

Lol.

Thanks for the laughs on this Friday guys. Nice way to finish the week. I really hope you don't actually believe what you are saying but I respect your freedom to post it.

Just as quick hypothetical. If we make the playoffs this year and get swept 4-0 will it be OK to be pissed and want Holland fired? Or would that also fall into the stupidest things ever on this board? Still not enough sample size? Where is this line of not only rational criticism but that will lol keep me from having such outlandish expectations?

Too funny.

double lol

 

[Aerchon]

double lol

Infinite lol. No upsies.

Sums up the intellectual level of the pro Holland argument in this thread nicely.

 

[Panda Bear]

Infinite lol. No upsies.

Sums up the intellectual level of the pro Holland argument in this thread nicely.

the anti-holland arguments are so puerile that they're best dismissed with derisive acronyms like 'lol', 'lmao' and 'rofl'.

i can't stress enough how inane, myopic, and feverish these anti-holland posts are.

 

[Oilhawks]

People also forget that Chicago had an identical record to Edmonton after the first 5 games of the season. Even now they’re 3rd in their division without Toew’s and Crawford. The veterans on that team hate losing and they have some good, young firepower.

People are still sleeping on the Hawks this season. Hawks were poised to be the team that upsets in the play ins, I imagine they would have upset most other matchups.

 

[McOilers97]

Lol.

Thanks for the laughs on this Friday guys. Nice way to finish the week. I really hope you don't actually believe what you are saying but I respect your freedom to post it.

Just as quick hypothetical. If we make the playoffs this year and get swept 4-0 will it be OK to be pissed and want Holland fired? Or would that also fall into the stupidest things ever on this board? Still not enough sample size? Where is this line of not only rational criticism but that will lol keep me from having such outlandish expectations?

Too funny.

@McOilers97 That is 110% hindsight. The point of rationalization was at the point of 13 extremely important games of extreme failure. Anyone can jump on a bandwagon after an awesome 11 and 2 stint and say we are awesome and we should have been patient... That is pure BS unless you have a very selective/short term memory. Or are pushing a very very obviously bias pro Holland agenda. You can't rewrite the past to suit your own perspective.

Why are the 9 games to start the season "extremely important games" that warrant extra criticism, when every game in a 56 game season counts for the same? Should Montreal fans not be pissed off about their recent results because they had a hot start, winning "extremely important games"?

Last year's results prior to the freeze with a 37-25-9 record are a far better sample than you clinging to this "failed in the playoffs" narrative. I'm not "jumping on the bandwagon", with this hot streak. I'm excited about it, but Holland's results last year already earned some significant favour with me. The team was legitimately good last year, not incredible, but good. And with the additions that have been made, they're even better this season because they have more options on D in particular.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Yep keep marching them goalposts like they’re light infantry.

I've said in this very thread that I wouldn't fire him right now, but if they're 50% into next season and not within striking position of a playoff spot that he should be evaluated.

It's interesting that the bar around here is so low that winning a playoff series is considered too much.

It doesn't matter how well you do in the regular season if you fail in the playoffs. The Oilers should absolutely not be satisfied with simply making the playoffs 6 years into McDavid's career.

 

[CornKicker]

Isn't it generally even considered common wisdom by hockey analysts and the like that the first 10 games should basically be thrown out, for evaluation purposes? The start of a season is just so volatile, with various teams underachieving and overachieving unsustainably. And yet this guy is basing so much of his position on the 3-6 start, as well as 4 bubble games, which after such a long lay-off, were also basically the start of a new season.

as someone who is an avid gambler this is 100% factual

 

[McOilers97]

I've said in this very thread that I wouldn't fire him right now, but if they're 50% into next season and not within striking position of a playoff spot that he should be evaluated.

It's interesting that the bar around here is so low that winning a playoff series is considered too much.

It doesn't matter how well you do in the regular season if you fail in the playoffs.

A lot has to happen for that to be the case. There isn't really a point when the team has played at an almost 100point per 82 game pace under Holland so far, with more cap flexibility coming this summer, of making plans based on missing the playoffs. I'll eat crow if they do, but I don't think this team is going to fall off a cliff.

To me, Holland should feel some heat if they have a couple first round playoff exits in a row. I'm talking losing in the first round this year AND next year.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

A lot has to happen for that to be the case. There isn't really a point when the team has played at an almost 100point per 82 game pace under Holland so far, with more cap flexibility coming this summer, of making plans based on missing the playoffs. I'll eat crow if they do, but I don't think this team is going to fall off a cliff.

To me, Holland should feel some heat if they have a couple first round playoff exits in a row. I'm talking losing in the first round this year AND next year.

Right, this offseason is Holland's chance to make his mark, but I still think they need to make some noise this year. There's no reason they can't at least reach the second round in this division.