Fire Ken Holland

[BlackDogg]

If Holland can get Pronger back again, can we close this for now?

 

[bellagiobob]

If Holland can get Pronger back again, can we close this for now?

I finally got around to reading the first post. Yikes, that didn't age well in three short weeks.

 

[DropTheGloves]

I finally got around to reading the first post. Yikes, that didn't age well in three short weeks.

If one is making their decision about a GM’s body of work over two years based on three weeks of good hockey in the middle of the regular season, they aren’t worth conversing with in the first place I’m afraid.

Speaking of not aging well though, there is this weird obsession certain posters have with echoing the same talking points again long after I’ve stopped responding to them, which is what has kept this thread more or less alive in that time. For hating the topic so much, they sure like to keep bumping it to the top.

 

[TB12]

If one is making their decision about a GM’s body of work over two years based on three weeks of good hockey in the middle of the regular season, they aren’t worth conversing with in the first place I’m afraid.

Speaking of not aging well though, there is this weird obsession certain posters have with echoing the same talking points again long after I’ve stopped responding to them, which is what has kept this thread more or less alive in that time. For hating the topic so much, they sure like to keep bumping it to the top.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bad troll is bad.

 

[Panda Bear]

If one is making their decision about a GM’s body of work over two years based on three weeks of good hockey in the middle of the regular season

lol

 

[Tobias Kahun]

If one is making their decision about a GM’s body of work over two years based on three weeks of good hockey in the middle of the regular season, they aren’t worth conversing with in the first place I’m afraid.

Speaking of not aging well though, there is this weird obsession certain posters have with echoing the same talking points again long after I’ve stopped responding to them, which is what has kept this thread more or less alive in that time. For hating the topic so much, they sure like to keep bumping it to the top.

You’re the one basing this thread off of 13 games though.

isn’t that a little ironic

 

[HockeyGuy1964]

You’re the one basing this thread off of 13 games though.

isn’t that a little ironic

You got this all wrong.

He's on the side of rational thought & you're having a knee-jerk reaction to a few good games.

You need to calm down & have a wait & see attitude, until the inevitable 2 game losing streak at least, & then we'll have a well balanced, well thought out discussion about which of us will be driving him to the airport.

 

[Oilhawks]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bad troll is bad.

lol

You’re the one basing this thread off of 13 games though.

isn’t that a little ironic

People like him are willfully ignorant of their hypocrisy to the point of projecting it on others. He’ll never change.

 

[Stoneman89]

If one is making their decision about a GM’s body of work over two years based on three weeks of good hockey in the middle of the regular season, they aren’t worth conversing with in the first place I’m afraid.

Speaking of not aging well though, there is this weird obsession certain posters have with echoing the same talking points again long after I’ve stopped responding to them, which is what has kept this thread more or less alive in that time. For hating the topic so much, they sure like to keep bumping it to the top.

First time I've bothered to venture on this thread, and it will be the last.

You reap what you sow. In hockey terms, suggesting canning a GM after one season and part of the next is about as knee jerk reaction as you can get, and deserving of any ridicule that comes that way. I imagine you're likely one of these guys that freak when we go down 1-0 in a game and want half the team sat.

 

[DropTheGloves]

First time I've bothered to venture on this thread, and it will be the last.

Thanks for gracing us with your presence.

You reap what you sow. In hockey terms, suggesting canning a GM after one season and part of the next is about as knee jerk reaction as you can get, and deserving of any ridicule that comes that way. I imagine you're likely one of these guys that freak when we go down 1-0 in a game and want half the team sat.

It’s too you bad you used your limited and obviously very valuable time to make such a recycled post. “Knee jerk”- check. “You deserve to be insulted”- check. “I have no valid points of my own to offer”- check. Thanks for adding nothing of value. And again, the irony of those who say over and over again this is a vapid discussion while constantly feeling the need to bump it is blunt enough to be considered a lethal weapon.

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

Thanks for gracing us with your presence.



It’s too you bad you used your limited and obviously very valuable time to make such a recycled post. “Knee jerk”- check. “You deserve to be insulted”- check. “I have no valid points of my own to offer”- check. Thanks for adding nothing of value. And again, the irony of those who say over and over again this is a vapid discussion while constantly feeling the need to bump it is blunt enough to be considered a lethal weapon.

If I was you I wouldn’t want this thread getting constantly bumped either.

Yikes.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

But the play ins.

The thing I don't get is why don't the play-ins matter? If the Oilers won that series you better believe they would've mattered. They didn't win the series, the Blackhawks took them to school. Was it because the series was only 5 games and not 7? Wouldn't have changed the result. They weren't coming back from being down 3-1 in the series.

If they lose in the first round this year will it not matter too?

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

The thing I don't get is why don't the play-ins matter? If the Oilers won that series you better believe they would've mattered. They didn't win the series, the Blackhawks took them to school. Was it because the series was only 5 games and not 7? Wouldn't have changed the result. They weren't coming back from being down 3-1 in the series.

If they lose in the first round this year will it not matter too?

Because the play in rounds were a complete crapshoot after months and months of not playing?

So yes it would matter if they lost in the first round this year because it’s completely different circumstances. Come on.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Because the play in rounds were a complete crapshoot after months and months of not playing?

So yes it would matter if they lost in the first round this year because it’s completely different circumstances. Come on.

Every playoffs is a crapshoot. That's a BS excuse. The Oilers should've won that series had they made any meaningful adjustments. Duncan Keith abused the points all series long and they never thought to do anything about that.

FFS they were in their home arena the entire time. If anything, they had an advantage over other teams. Other than that they were in the same boat as everyone else.

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

Every playoffs is a crapshoot. That's a BS excuse. The Oilers should've won that series had they made any meaningful adjustments. Duncan Keith abused the points all series long and they never thought to do anything about that.

FFS they were in their home arena the entire time. If anything, they had an advantage over other teams. Other than that they were in the same boat as everyone else.

Like half a year off due to a pandemic and then a random hockey series isn’t a bullshit excuse.

It’s not really shocking that a team full of veteran Stanley cup winners was more ready for a playoff series after a bunch of time off than a bunch of young fellas who got their feet wet once. I’m not saying that they didn’t drop the ball I’m saying it doesn’t change the fact that we are a good team.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Like half a year off due to a pandemic and then a random hockey series isn’t a bullshit excuse.

It’s not really shocking that a team full of veteran Stanley cup winners was more ready for a playoff series after a bunch of time off than a bunch of young fellas who got their feet wet once. I’m not saying that they didn’t drop the ball I’m saying it doesn’t change the fact that we are a good team.

We were a good team... in the regular season. If you're not good in the playoffs it doesn't matter how good you were in the regular season. And those Stanley Cup winning vets were easily pushed aside by Vegas.

If the Oilers make the playoffs but don't win a playoff round, do you consider that a successful season?

 

[Ritchie Valens]

I finally got around to reading the first post. Yikes, that didn't age well in three short weeks.

I'm a big Holland fan. I really thought Tippett was the big problem through those first 12 games.

Now that the team got their "preseason" out of the way, they look much better. Lots of wrinkles to iron out still but a much better on-ice product. Connor himself said the team is committed and has 100% buy in.

 

[TheNumber4]

If one is making their decision about a GM’s body of work over two years based on three weeks of good hockey in the middle of the regular season, they aren’t worth conversing with in the first place I’m afraid.

Speaking of not aging well though, there is this weird obsession certain posters have with echoing the same talking points again long after I’ve stopped responding to them, which is what has kept this thread more or less alive in that time. For hating the topic so much, they sure like to keep bumping it to the top.

Dude. What the hell are you doing? You STILL arguing all the knee-jerk and stupid "points" you made in your OP? Where in a short sample size you stated this team is essentially proven to be objectively worse than last year (meanwhile the Oilers are within striking distance of first), has bad goaltending (meanwhile Smith has the league leading save percentage and Kosko has shown to be able to play decent while rested), and has poor D Depth (meanwhile our D leads the NHL in points and seemingly always has options to throw into the lineup if injuries happen or someone needs to sit).

You don't need to admit you are wrong but atleast agree to disagree and stop trolling your own teams fan base.

 

[Barrsy]

If one is making their decision about a GM’s body of work over two years based on three weeks of good hockey in the middle of the regular season, they aren’t worth conversing with in the first place I’m afraid.

Speaking of not aging well though, there is this weird obsession certain posters have with echoing the same talking points again long after I’ve stopped responding to them, which is what has kept this thread more or less alive in that time. For hating the topic so much, they sure like to keep bumping it to the top.

Not alot of self awareness going on here

 

[DropTheGloves]

If they lose in the first round this year will it not matter too?

History will be rewritten to state that the playoffs were not at all expected this season, and Holland getting them there was a Herculean feat worthy of his own statue going up next to Gretz’s. I can see it now.

 

[DropTheGloves]

You don't need to admit you are wrong but atleast agree to disagree and stop trolling your own teams fan base.

I said it already- if people didn’t think this was a topic worth discussing they’d stop bumping it (with complaints about the topic no less!). I have been away from the board for the last bit as my stalker pointed out and yet it continues to grow exponentially, so maybe tell those posters to stop and let it die a natural death.

 

[Aerchon]

We were a good team... in the regular season. If you're not good in the playoffs it doesn't matter how good you were in the regular season. And those Stanley Cup winning vets were easily pushed aside by Vegas.

If the Oilers make the playoffs but don't win a playoff round, do you consider that a successful season?

The whole "Fire Holland" thing is in the past. Dead as a door nail at this point in time imo.

Moving forward, if the Oilers make the playoffs, Holland will absolutely be judged on playoff success. As is right. Chiarelli gets pooped on, and rightly so, but Holland inherited a better team imo than Chiarelli did and Chiarelli managed a good showing in his second year. I personally think fair is fair and if Holland can't beat that marker with this roster and 2 of the best players in the world he deserves some criticism.

No reason to argue about what will hopefully not happen anyways but playoffs do matter more. Much more. Saying otherwise is silly.

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

We were a good team... in the regular season. If you're not good in the playoffs it doesn't matter how good you were in the regular season. And those Stanley Cup winning vets were easily pushed aside by Vegas.

If the Oilers make the playoffs but don't win a playoff round, do you consider that a successful season?

Depends on the circumstances.

 

[CanmoreMike]

The thing I don't get is why don't the play-ins matter? If the Oilers won that series you better believe they would've mattered. They didn't win the series, the Blackhawks took them to school. Was it because the series was only 5 games and not 7? Wouldn't have changed the result. They weren't coming back from being down 3-1 in the series.

If they lose in the first round this year will it not matter too?

The issue I have with the play-ins is that it showed the shortsightedness of the NHL. Forget that it was the Oilers and look at it like this:

First, the Oilers didn’t finish the season with 81 points compared to Stars 92. It was neck and neck 86-85 I believe. If the byes were 3 for one division in the east and west I’d have less complaints. But it was a perfect 2-2 in the east and an imperfect 3-1 in the west. Why the NHL didn’t call it and say top two teams from each division is beyond me.

Second, it was possible that the NHL would have had only one Canadian team in the playoffs (Jets-Flames). Way to support your television part, Sportsnet.

Third, I often hear from Bob Stauffer how much money the Oilers pay into revenue sharing. That’s great! How much does the Stars pay? My guess is they take from that pool. So maybe the priority in global pandemic with economic uncertainty is to strengthen your strongest brands.

So considering the teams were so close in the standings and Stars only beat Oilers out based on the tiniest percentage points - Oilers should have been given the bye.

 

[TheNumber4]

I said it already- if people didn’t think this was a topic worth discussing they’d stop bumping it (with complaints about the topic no less!). I have been away from the board for the last bit as my stalker pointed out and yet it continues to grow exponentially, so maybe tell those posters to stop and let it die a natural death.

Unfortunately this has become the defacto Holland discussion thread so expect Bumps. And in good fun, your OP is rightfully being called out (you must see how wrong it looks considering the Oilers play this year). Don’t take it personally.