Post-Game Talk: Oilers lose 4-1

[KCC]

We got flat out outworked in that game, both physically and from a mental focus standpoint.

We have to stop floating into games and waiting for other teams to set the tone before we figure out a way to respond. All year we have been able to snap out of it after a period at most, but it caught up to us tonight and we can't expect it to go any other way from here on out.

Every damn game it takes at least a period for them to figure out that they have the most success getting pucks out, in deep and on the goal. For whatever reason it seems that they need a constant kick in the ass to remember to play the game right instead of pretty.

It has been happening a lot since the return from the All-Star break. A lot of lackadaisical periods and lack of work ethic. And by the time they wake up even a little it's too late. Can't win face offs and board battles which in turn causes them to get hemmed in and when they get their chance it's one and done. It's no wonder this team can't score outside of the top line most games. Tonight was a perfect example of having to lean heavily on Drais and McDavid. Again. While Nuge and Eberle were useless as usual.

 

[McPuritania]

refs miss penalties all the time and get duped by the fakers.. If the refs decide to put away the whistle are they breaking the rules? by your logic a coach should be able to challenge a play if their player gets cross checked by a Dman in front of the net or get hacked by a goalie while crashing the net.

Bishop slashing Hendricks was illegal too ..

This challenge is a farce especially when the goals happen 30 seconds after the missed call.

Exactly how I see it. It's hard to argue the integrity of an offside with a coaches challenge when referees arbitrarily pick, and choose, when to hand out penalties.

Problem is that this review rule as it exists serves only to reduce offense. How often do you think a potential scoring play is blown dead because a linesmen blows it offside when it actually isn't? But that play isn't reviewable.

The NHL either needs to scrap the review process entirely, or adjust offside so that there is more leeway for the players entering the zone.

Really good point, Spawn. Glad you brought it up. Great post.

 

[snipes]

Problem is that this review rule as it exists serves only to reduce offense. How often do you think a potential scoring play is blown dead because a linesmen blows it offside when it actually isn't? But that play isn't reviewable.

The NHL either needs to scrap the review process entirely, or adjust offside so that there is more leeway for the players entering the zone.

This. I think we need a common law style approach to these reviews, not a black/white approach on the offsides.

It goes totally against the purpose of the video review for offsides to overturn a call that is within inches of being onside. We need a level of discretion, judgment, and leeway in our interpretation rather than a black/white approach.

 

[McPuritania]

Doesn't sound good.

**** me. I really hope he's okay, and this doesn't become a lingering issue. We finally get the stud on the back end we've needed for so long, and this happens.

****.

 

[Alawishis]

UH OH. I wonder if Larsson's had back issues before? Joensuu's back haunted him for awhile and maybe still does.

My tin foil hat is on and New Jersey screwed us! It always looked like Larsson had a stiff upright back style to his game. DAMN YOU SHERO!

Oh no, Google found this, Larsson hurt injured his lower back before: http://www.nj.com/devils/index.ssf/2012/02/devils_say_adam_larssons_injur.html

That article is from five years ago. Has he had ongoing back problems or did he just have a bruised back five years ago? The link you provided is evidence for the latter.

 

[snipes]

A bruised back in Larsson's 2011-12 rookie season isn't necessarily evidence of a recurring injury.

He missed less than a month of time and appears to have recovered fine from a bruise. He played all 82 games last season, relax. No reason to hit the panic button right now.

 

[McJesu]

By the same logic of the people defending the offside rule, why not get every call correct? If the referee unfairly drops the puck, anything that happens in the ensuing play should be called back. If we can see by video evidence that a player cheats on a draw, call back anything that happens afterwards. If the referee misses too many men on the ice, call back anything that happens in the ensuing play. What if the ref blows an icing call? And then thirty seconds later someone scores? Call it back.

It's an awful, awful rule, I will hate it for as long as it exists. Sure some will go your way sometimes, or vice versa, that's not the point. Refs make many mistakes every game, missing an offside call by a millimeter wasn't a significant problem that needed fixing. The worst thing about the rule is that even up to a minute or more afterwards you can take away a perfectly entertaining and beautiful hockey goal, for a minute technicality, even though other technical aspects of hockey like dropping the puck, calling penalties, icing, line changes, and so on, aren't subject to review, yet have even more significant impact on the outcome of games. The only reviewable plays should be ones directly related to the actual goal being scored, the most crucial call.

 

[Yablo21]

I dunno, don't think it was that bad of a game. Bad luck on the first Tampa goal with a broken stick and RNH was very close to breaking up that play. And we get a big goal called back due to a really close, non-issue for the last 100 years of hockey, missed offside call.

Oilers carried momentum most of the first period, I thought it was a poor choice to break up the lines. I would have stuck with Ebs, Maroon, McDavid. Because RNH, Ebs, Lucic had absolutely nothing and it showed in the 2nd and 3rd period. Personally Lucic should be left on the 3rd line until playoffs cause right now he is so inconsistent its infuriating.

I agree the offside review is excessive and not in the best interest of the league. If they want to keep the rule then the opposition coach should have to signal a challenge within a few seconds of the puck entering the zone, not wait until they can scrutinize it at nauseum and disrupt the flow of the game or to simply to kill momentum of the other team. The rule is intended to prevent cherry picking and cheating off the line. I cannot think that those otherwise unnoticeable calls really give the attacking team an unfair advantage. What about all the scoring chances that are blown down by incorrect offside calls. I hate watching a 2 min cycle in the zone when I think the initial play may have been offside, it just ruins the game. Of course I am happy when it is in-favor of my team but I would much rather it didn't exist at all.

I actually don't mind the goalie interference, there is still questionable reviews, but I think it has helped protect the goalies from being run over this season, which is valuable.

 

[Yablo21]

I dunno, don't think it was that bad of a game. Bad luck on the first Tampa goal with a broken stick and RNH was very close to breaking up that play. And we get a big goal called back due to a really close, non-issue for the last 100 years of hockey, missed offside call.

Oilers carried momentum most of the first period, I thought it was a poor choice to break up the lines. I would have stuck with Ebs, Maroon, McDavid. Because RNH, Ebs, Lucic had absolutely nothing and it showed in the 2nd and 3rd period. Personally Lucic should be left on the 3rd line until playoffs cause right now he is so inconsistent its infuriating.

I agree the offside review is excessive and not in the best interest of the league. If they want to keep the rule then the opposition coach should have to signal a challenge within a few seconds of the puck entering the zone, not wait until they can scrutinize it at nauseum and disrupt the flow of the game or to simply to kill momentum of the other team. The rule is intended to prevent cherry picking and cheating off the line. I cannot think that those otherwise unnoticeable calls really give the attacking team an unfair advantage. What about all the scoring chances that are blown down by incorrect offside calls. I hate watching a 2 min cycle in the zone when I think the initial play may have been offside, it just ruins the game. Of course I am happy when it is in-favor of my team but I would much rather it didn't exist at all.

I actually don't mind the goalie interference, there is still questionable reviews, but I think it has helped protect the goalies from being run over this season, which is valuable.

Also I thought Brossoit played well. The first two goals were beauty plays and perfect finishes from Palat. The third he was screened by 3 guys in front of him. Otherwise he made a ton of really good saves to keep it close.

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

Also I thought Brossoit played well. The first two goals were beauty plays and perfect finishes from Palat. The third he was screened by 3 guys in front of him. Otherwise he made a ton of really good saves to keep it close.

He played ok, but the team probably Needs a save on that 3rd goal, but he is a back-up at the end of the day.

 

[oobga]

A bruised back in Larsson's 2011-12 rookie season isn't necessarily evidence of a recurring injury.

He missed less than a month of time and appears to have recovered fine from a bruise. He played all 82 games last season, relax. No reason to hit the panic button right now.

 

[Tyrolean]

LB is at best an average goalie, not bad not great.

 

[EakinsMVP]

I just don't understand why the line was drawn on challenging offsides. Like goaltender interference I kind of understand, as that happens when the actual scoring play occurs. But as many others have mentioned, there are so many illegal plays that are missed that happen way before a goal, so why is offside included in challenges? If you're going to allow a goal to be overturned by a missed call 30 seconds ago, at least be consistent and either let every other infraction be challengable (oh god no), or don't let any of them be challenged.

 

[Mr Positive]

LB is at best an average goalie, not bad not great.

Yeah I dont think we're getting another backup. Even with a high end back up like Neuvirth, they aren't going to be amazing. Talbot has been top tier this season so it's not a fair standard for LB

 

[Dorian2]

UH OH. I wonder if Larsson's had back issues before? Joensuu's back haunted him for awhile and maybe still does.

My tin foil hat is on and New Jersey screwed us! It always looked like Larsson had a stiff upright back style to his game. DAMN YOU SHERO!

Oh no, Google found this, Larsson hurt injured his lower back before: http://www.nj.com/devils/index.ssf/2012/02/devils_say_adam_larssons_injur.html

I'm not sure if you're posting this incident that happened 5 years ago because you're actually concerned or just to be sarcastic to be honest. I'll take the latter in your benefit.

I'm not too surprised that Larsson tweaked his back at this point. The dude has been a wrecking machine out there all year and gives 100% almost every game IMO. On top of that he logs big minutes. Of course he's going to wear out. Hope he's not out for too long though. WIll Nurse be in early?

 

[ToeMcDrag83]

Imagine a series winning goal in playoffs OT being called back for a 2" offside challenge. Post gloves and sticks flying all over the place, players elated and jumping all over the place. And then, oh sorry, you were offside by a distance that the naked eye can't catch in a speed game that has no bearing whatsoever on the scoring play nor does the play offer any benefit or advantage to the offensive team on zone entry. But it's offside fam. Clean this mess up, put them Stanley Cup champ hats away.

 

[BoldNewLettuce]

So a clownshoes rule change benefited a sunbelt expansion team instead of the Oilers you say?

 

[Bryanbryoil]

I'm not sure if you're posting this incident that happened 5 years ago because you're actually concerned or just to be sarcastic to be honest. I'll take the latter in your benefit.

I'm not too surprised that Larsson tweaked his back at this point. The dude has been a wrecking machine out there all year and gives 100% almost every game IMO. On top of that he logs big minutes. Of course he's going to wear out. Hope he's not out for too long though. WIll Nurse be in early?

He was going hard against Boyle all night as well and that's a big guy to be locking horns with time and time again.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

So a clownshoes rule change benefited a sunbelt expansion team instead of the Oilers you say?

It would've been called the same if Tampa had scored it. The rule sucks but there is no bias to it.

 

[BoldNewLettuce]

It would've been called the same if Tampa had scored it. The rule sucks but there is no bias to it.

Or maybe they just use another angle and say it was called onside on the ice. Inconclusive. Good goal.

And if the other angle is brought up we're talking about how it doesn't fit with the spirit of the rule.

 

[Electricity]

So a clownshoes rule change benefited a sunbelt expansion team instead of the Oilers you say?

Yeah, those Florida teams get all the love and respect.

 

[ElysiumAB]

McBigYak the voice of logic and reason amongst all these silly challenge comments.

Time and distance offsides does not matter, and shouldn't. It's a black and white rule, by introducing those elements you'd only be creating grey area and subjective judgement. You guys are better than this.

If you want to get rid of reviewable offsides altogether, fine - but I don't think most of you grasp the consequences of the changes you're suggesting.

They made 100% the right call on an objectively illegal play, isn't that what people want?

 

[ujju2]

McBigYak the voice of logic and reason amongst all these silly challenge comments.

Time and distance offsides does not matter, and shouldn't. It's a black and white rule, by introducing those elements you'd only be creating grey area and subjective judgement. You guys are better than this.

If you want to get rid of reviewable offsides altogether, fine - but I don't think most of you grasp the consequences of the changes you're suggesting.

They made 100% the right call on an objectively illegal play, isn't that what people want?

Yeah, I'd just rather do away with offside challenges altogether, it ruins the flow and momentum of the game. Also seems to have a demoralizing effect on a team that scores and has it called back.

 

[BoldNewLettuce]

Anyhoo..

1-what about getting rid of offsides altogether? Do we really care if someone cherry picks that much? Wouldn't it make the transition game much more dangerous?

2-if we love offsides so much and love video review so much can we find a "time limit" where an offside would effect a goal? IMO It should not be relevant once the opposition has caught up to the play. So goals 3/5 seconds after the missed offside should count.

 

[Digger12]

McBigYak the voice of logic and reason amongst all these silly challenge comments.

Time and distance offsides does not matter, and shouldn't. It's a black and white rule, by introducing those elements you'd only be creating grey area and subjective judgement. You guys are better than this.

If you want to get rid of reviewable offsides altogether, fine - but I don't think most of you grasp the consequences of the changes you're suggesting.

They made 100% the right call on an objectively illegal play, isn't that what people want?

I guess what I'm struggling with is that while it's a black and white rule and I can understand the allure of "getting the call right", has this really been for the betterment of the product on the ice? Given that all this rule does is snatch away goals from a game that already is starving for offense and excitement as obstruction penalties are routinely missed all over the ice, I would say no.

I liken it to when the NHL implemented the 'zero tolerance' rule for being in the goalie's crease. If the opposition had the slightest edge of their skate in the crease even if they in no way were impeding the goaltender, automatic no goal if the puck went in the net. It was a rule that looked good at first glance and had the best of intentions, but after a few years the NHL scrapped it because it was causing more harm than good to the game overall. I expect the offside rule will have a similar fate, especially if it becomes a factor in a high profile playoff game like in the Cup Final.