Oilers in NS
Registered User
- Oct 11, 2017
- 11,861
- 11,223
Any player over 30, I sign for 3 years max. No NMC or NTC at all.[/QUOTE
Agreed
Any player over 30, I sign for 3 years max. No NMC or NTC at all.[/QUOTE
Agreed
Eh, I'd say the true downfall was the Smyth trade and the subsequent shipping out of that 06 core in the offseason. We were in a playoff race in 07.
Statistically he has been decent to good since the defense has been healthy. He is 10-4-4 since Sekera returned with a .912 sv% and a 2.83 gaa. His problem has been consistency. When he is bad he is very bad.
Again, I have tried to support Koskinen and find the 'frying pan' type posts to be both ridiculous and immature. The fact is however that he lets in a lot of bad goals, as you seem to acknowledge with the bold statement. He lets in bad angle goals that simply have nothing to do with the defense in front of him, and everything to do with his positioning in the crease. The notion that he would be 'consistently great' once Klefbom returned was/is indefensible. Being .912 is not great in this or any league. Its acceptable. I stand by my conclusion, based on his own posts, that the poster in question over rates both Koskinen and Klefbom. Neither of them is anything that special. As you point out it has been Sekera, not Klefbom, who has stabilized the d-corps.
Statistically he has been decent to good since the defense has been healthy. He is 10-4-4 since Sekera returned with a .912 sv% and a 2.83 gaa. His problem has been consistency. When he is bad he is very bad.
And that for me has been the biggest issue with his play. He'll make a 10 bell save in one moment and then let in a stinker to deflate everyone the next minute. At 31 years of age, I would have thought the consistency issues would be overcome and at least lessened.
As Draisaitl mentioned, I don't know if it's just something that sticks out for me or not, but the amount of posts and bars that are hit behind in seem alarmingly higher than normal. Not sure if that will even out in the future or not.
The other thing that I can't quite get is how small he seems in net when facing shooters. For a big man, you'd think most of the holes would be covered up.
But the biggest thing, as has been mentioned many times on here, is the timing and term of that contract. Giving a long term deal to a relative unknown after a short little splurge is so "Oiler-like", it reeks. I seriously doubt that multiple suitors would have been beating down his agents door if they had waited another couple months to get a better read on him. A guy his age with limited NHL ecxperience is taking a huge gamble. And we've had far too many of those blow up in our face to keep making the same mistakes.
Is he terrible? No. Is he great? No. I think he's settled in as a middle of the road to average starter at best and possible decent backup, maybe in the Anders Nilsson mold.
Lastly, I sincerely hope I'm wrong and he turns everything around this summer and comes back a different goalie. Would love to eat crow on this, but I'm not seeing anything right now or the last few months to convince me otherwise.
The question being discussed was how Koskinen would perform had the defense been healthy. That means Sekera is playing. All I did was state his actual numbers under the scenario being discussed. I made no claim that this proved anything. You are the one seemingly reading between the lines for some sort of deep hidden meaning.With all due respect this is some sample effects. The period just coincides with Sekera's return, but not necessarily due to his return. Sekera, like anybody back from long injury took a bit to find his game.
In anycase broader sample differentiates from the bolded stats. In both February, and March, Koskis's splits are 2.97GAA both months. His save % being .904, and .908 respectively. The Sekera sample just allows a time frame where the stats were slightly better, but without it being a sample that would substantiate anything. At best its associative.
Harpoon and Stoneman were correct, and your reply seems to suggest that Sekera has made a difference, and with numbers improving being indicative of that difference. But as any person familiar with statistics knows your illustration would be as associative connection, not a causative one. But your reply was to posts that clearly suggested that the defence the Oilers had on the ice was not the only problem. That Koski himself is part of the problem, and you seem to agree. So why bring up the Sekera associated stats?
Again, I have tried to support Koskinen and find the 'frying pan' type posts to be both ridiculous and immature. The fact is however that he lets in a lot of bad goals, as you seem to acknowledge with the bold statement. He lets in bad angle goals that simply have nothing to do with the defense in front of him, and everything to do with his positioning in the crease. The notion that he would be 'consistently great' once Klefbom returned was/is indefensible. Being .912 is not great in this or any league. Its acceptable. I stand by my conclusion, based on his own posts, that the poster in question over rates both Koskinen and Klefbom. Neither of them is anything that special. As you point out it has been Sekera, not Klefbom, who has stabilized the d-corps.
The question being discussed was how Koskinen would perform had the defense been healthy. That means Sekera is playing. All I did was state his actual numbers under the scenario being discussed. I made no claim that this proved anything. You are the one seemingly reading between the lines for some sort of deep hidden meaning.
Any player over 30, I sign for 3 years max. No NMC or NTC at all.
I don't disagree. This contract is worrying. The problem I have is that goalies in the NHl are often enigmas. Great at one moment and horrid at another. Frankly we have no idea right now which end of the scale Koskinen will tend towards. But if its not to the positive side this contract will be an anchor.