Year end player grades

[Gord]

FORWARDS

McDavid: A, but I don't think he should be captain next year
Draisaitl: B+.
Hall: C+, I think he's just burned out on losing. I'd trade him for the right guy on D
Eberle: C. gets his points but too much of a passenger. would trade for the right deal, but I like they he always gets the puck in the net.
RNH: C. . needs to learn how to block shots. would have graded higher, but had an incomplete season.
Letestu: C. he can go.
Korpikoski: D+. he can go
Hendricks: C. need him on the team in for his character. needs a lesser role
Maroon: B+. loved him great pickup!
Kassian: C+. would like to see him after an offseason of being sober and stable.
Pakarinen: B. has potential
Lander: F.
Yakupov: C. feel bad for the guy
Pouliot: C.
Cracknell: D. he can go
Gazdic: F. buh-bye
Klinkhammer: D he can go

DEFENSEMEN

Sekera: B. not a #1. would be good in the right role.
Klefbom: B.
Davidson: A+
Oesterle: B-
Nurse: C agree with Cloned. Wasn't ready for the minutes he was playing.
Fayne: D he can go
Gryba: C.
Pardy: B. looked good in his few games
Clendening: D he can go
Nikitin: F buh-bye
Reinhart: D+ still don't understand the trade.
GOALIES

Talbot: B. his early season struggles kept him from a higher grade
Brossoit: D. Not ready.

 

[Dan403]

How can you hand out so many passing grades when the team failed (to make the playoffs)?

 

[nabob]

I am a realist. 29th is bad. Even our best players were not good enough.

A guy like Kane gets an A+. A guy like Toews an A-. Crosby an A. I don't think McDavid has the same impact on the game as these guys yet. Points wise McDavid is there but impact wise isnt there yet. You also have to take his missing so much time into consideration a tiny bit. Who knows if he would have struggled over a full season a bit.

Klefbom was garbage defensively for the majority of this season before turning it on and looking great. This is a full year appraisal, not a best ten games appraisal. He was a D to start, maybe even got to an A but then missed most the season. C is a fair mark under the circumstances. His potential is higher than Harmonic especially offensively.

I never said he had to be a top pairing guy. Think your misunderstanding. A guy like OEL makes Klefbom tradable but without a great defenseman coming back you can't trade Klefbom. He is too important otherwise.

But if you think a guy who struggled for a significant portion of the year and missed most the season deserves an A mostly on potential for a 29th place team... Sure, to each thier own.

Talbot was losing us games hand over fist. Its part of the goaltending gig in that when they are bad it costs teams points. He was one of our worst for an unacceptable amount of time. We will not make the playoffs next year if he plays the same way.

I think your perception of some players performance at the start of the season is way off. But I should have suspected that would be the case with your long running, obvious bias against Klefbom. It's not a coincidence that you are the only posted to rate him that low and constantly run him down while trying to prop up Marincin most of the time. Never said Klefbom should get an A, but definitely was better than what you say.

 

[Gord]

How can you hand out so many passing grades when the team failed (to make the playoffs)?

for me, some grades are for how players performed compared expectations.
and to have a lot of C players for example makes it clear how the team missed the playoffs . if many players were just Meh or worse, and not many exceed expectations, that sounds like a losing team.
just because the oilers were all close to last doesn't mean that they're all bad players.

look at Nurse. I think he's a good player who was harmed by where he had to play in the lineup. I gave him a C because I thought he did ok considering the circumstances

I only gave 4 forwards a "b" or better.
for defense only 2 of my "b" scores were for guys that only played a handful of minutes but looked pretty good in their limited action, and 2 B" score or better for guys that were injured.

So I think my grades seem mostly quite fair in context.

 

[oXo Cube]

McDavid: A - As advertised
Hall: B - Decent season but expectations are high and we need more from Hall. He knows that too.
Eberle: D - Not good enough for 6M.
RNH: C- - See Eberle but he has more excuses IMO.
Draisaitl: C - Probably gonna get some heat for this one but I think Hall had a lot more to do with his production than he did himself. Still lots to like obviously.
Yakupov: D - Just need more from him. Still wouldn't give up on him I guess but just not good enough.
Pouliot: C+ - Useful player that knows his role.
Letestu: B - Fine when played where he belongs
Korpikoski: D - Tire fire in all situations
Hendricks: D - Love him as much as the next guy but breaking down IMO.
Maroon: A - Obviously on a huge hot streak during his time in Edmonton but what can you complain about?
Kassian: C- - Meh.
Pakarinen: D - Obviously a pet player for McLellan but I really have no idea what he actually brings.
Lander: F - Just fell on his face. Too bad really.


Sekera: B - Not as much offense as I was hoping for, but obviously the least of our problems
Klefbom: B+ - Exceeding all expectations but incomplete season.
Davidson: B+ - Not sure exactly what we have here yet, but it's something
Nurse: C - Struggled but not his fault
Fayne: D - Got better as the season went on I guess
Gryba: C - Meh.
Pardy: D - Not an NHL player
Reinhart: D - He still has more time but didn't show enough


Talbot: B - Adequate starter. Not sure if he is more than that but even if he isn't that should be good enough.
Brossoit: C - Struggled obviously but I think he deserves some of the Nurse excuse too. Should be given a chance to earn the backup role in camp.

All ratings in context of expectations as I don't blame the collective failure of the team on any individual player.

 

[DipsyMcDoodles]

FORWARDS
Cracknell: D, meh?
Draisaitl: B+, was incredible for the first half but tailed off quite a bit; hopefully he can keep working on his endurance and maintain a steady pace throughout
Eberle: C, meh; don't think he's going to be here as he doesn't fit Chia's vision
Gazdic: F, what good is an enforcer that doesn't fight or defend his teammates?
Hall: B, Went supernova for 60% of the season, but really slowed down the last half; still a decent year
Hendricks: C, love Hendo, although he's starting to slow down
Kassian: C+, thought he left a good first impression but tailed off near the end of the season; then again he was stuck playing with Letestu...
Klinkhammer: D+, might like him more than Cracknell because he's a better skater
Korpikoski: D+, possession numbers are TERRIBAD with him on the ice; keep him on the fourth line or buy him out
Lander: F, what a disappointment.
Letestu: C+, he's a fourth liner pushed up to the third a lot of the time; scored a decent amount of points
Maroon: A-, just a BOSS; love what he brings, needs to work on skating over the summer though to keep up with 97
McDavid: A, kid is already a top 10 player in the league
Pakarinen: C+, has a wicked wrister; should unleash it more
Pouliot: C, thought he was better last year; still too inconsistent
RNH: C-, disappointing year from Nuge; injuries played a factor though
Yakupov: C-, hope he stays an Oiler has shown he can produce if playing with other skilled players

DEFENSEMEN
Clendening: D, ew
Davidson: B+, definitely a surprise; was solidifying himself as a top 4 D before his injury, hopefully that progression continues next season
Fayne: D, slow as a slug and can't make a SIMPLE pass whatsoever
Gryba: C+, liked his physicality
Klefbom: B-, he's still alive??!!!
Nikitin: F, LOL
Nurse: C, isn't ready but did OK under the circumstances
Oesterle: B-, decent showing for his first extended look in the NHL
Pardy: C+, decent bottom pairing guy
Reinhart: C-, needs more seasoning but his hockey IQ is definitely the strongest part of his game
Sekera: B-, definitely not a top pairing guy but even then, I expected him to be a bit better

GOALIES
Talbot: B, redeemed himself but I feel is sometimes still prone to letting weak wristers in
Brossoit: D, studly in his first game, dudly in the rest

 

[Debonair]

McDavid - A
Hall - B+
Draisaitl - B
Eberle - C+
RNH - C+
Yakupov - D
Maroon - B
Kassian - C
Davidson - B+
Klefbom - B
Nurse - C-
Fayne - D
Nikitin - F
Talbot - B+
Oesterle - C+
Reinhart - D
Ference - F
Gryba - C+
Broissoit - D
Hendricks - C
Letestu - D
Korpikoski - D
Lander - F
Pakirenen - C
Sekera - B
Pouliot - C

 

[CupofOil]

Taking into account expectations, I just can't put anybody but McDavid, Talbot, Draisaitl, Maroon, Davidson and Klefbom above a C and it's tough to grade Maroon, Davidson and Klefbom because they were small sample sizes and in Davidson and Klefbom's cases, there were some big struggles to start so really only McDavid, Talbot and to a lesser extent Drai deserve above average grades over the course of the season.

As the best veteran player on the team, Hall just can't disappear for months at a time. Outside of that initial hot stretch with Drai, Hall's numbers were incredibly mediocre. He did make an effort to improve his overall game and won more board battles than in the past but he needs to be more consistent offensively. He does need help though so obviously it's not fair to place all the blame on him.

Eberle scored some points as he usually does, but brought absolutely nothing else to the table. I think he knows that he's on his way out of town and his play especially down the stretch showed it, distinct lack of compete.
Nuge struggled even when healthy, he's going to need to take a step forward soon or this could be another Gagner situation, and a little durability would be nice also. He still looks like a boy playing a mens' game.

Everybody else on the team simply wasn't good enough. Pretty simple really.
Sekera will look a lot better when he gets some help, where have we heard that before?

 

[Aerchon]

I think your perception of some players performance at the start of the season is way off. But I should have suspected that would be the case with your long running, obvious bias against Klefbom. It's not a coincidence that you are the only posted to rate him that low and constantly run him down while trying to prop up Marincin most of the time. Never said Klefbom should get an A, but definitely was better than what you say.

See.

Now I never said he didn't have an impact. Just not as much as some of the best players in the NHL... Yet. Plus he got my highest mark on the team.

It's always been fairly well known that most people who follow hockey have a "what have you done for me recently" thought process.

Both Talbot and Klefbom played incredibly well to finish off their seasons. Doesn't change they were bad to start the year.

Next year if we have to wait 20 or more games again, for either of these players we will be in big trouble.

Look at Klefboms underlying numbers this year. They are terrible. Among the worst on the team. That's because he played that bad to start the year.

I think people forget or willingly ignore how bad their favorites did to start the year.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

for me, some grades are for how players performed compared expectations.

So I think my grades seem mostly quite fair in context.

This is not how grading works.

So would you grade younger players who aren't expected to be incredibly effective as strictly as you'd grade players would've been around for a decade?

Yes. That is precisely how grading works. This is also how performance evaluations work. You are given a task, and you are graded on how well you perform that task. Not how well you performed the task based on individual personal expectations.

Think of it like this:
Batman vs Superman is a BAD movie, and deserves its 29% Rotten Tomatoes score. You don't say "I Expected Batman v Superman to be horrible, and it TOTALLY met my expectations in its horribleness therefore, I give it a B+".



Here's an example:

Darnell Nurse - F
Nurse was in WAY over his head and is currently not an NHL calibre player. He is young and is expected to dramatically improve, but he is far behind the curve in terms of NHL play.

In the future, Darnell needs to improve dramatically, or we need to upgrade that position or we will continue to place in the lottery.

See! That was easy! We graded him on his performance as an NHL Defenceman, but annotated that it was due to his youth, and inexperience, and we expect him to grow into a player that can hit a C grade (average) next year.

 

[Gord]

This is not how grading works.

Yes. That is precisely how grading works. This is also how performance evaluations work. You are given a task, and you are graded on how well you perform that task. Not how well you performed the task based on individual personal expectations.

Think of it like this:
Batman vs Superman is a BAD movie, and deserves its 29% Rotten Tomatoes score. You don't say "I Expected Batman v Superman to be horrible, and it TOTALLY met my expectations in its horribleness therefore, I give it a B+".

Here's an example:

Darnell Nurse - F
Nurse was in WAY over his head and is currently not an NHL calibre player. He is young and is expected to dramatically improve, but he is far behind the curve in terms of NHL play.

In the future, Darnell needs to improve dramatically, or we need to upgrade that position or we will continue to place in the lottery.

See! That was easy! We graded him on his performance as an NHL Defenceman, but annotated that it was due to his youth, and inexperience, and we expect him to grow into a player that can hit a C grade (average) next year.

hard to talk to you when you're up on your high horse.

because McDavid is an A does Maroon get an F because he isn't as good? no.
they are taking different tests as they have different roles on the team.

are you giving McDavid an F because he's the best player on the team and the team was in 29th place, so he failed in the task he was given? I would not.

let's use Nurse as an example. for a rookie thrown to the wolves because of injury, he gets a higher grade for his efforts than if he was a 10 year man who was signed to be a #2. not as black and white as you would make it.

 

[DipsyMcDoodles]

Here's an example:

Darnell Nurse - F
Nurse was in WAY over his head and is currently not an NHL calibre player. He is young and is expected to dramatically improve, but he is far behind the curve in terms of NHL play.

In the future, Darnell needs to improve dramatically, or we need to upgrade that position or we will continue to place in the lottery.

See! That was easy! We graded him on his performance as an NHL Defenceman, but annotated that it was due to his youth, and inexperience, and we expect him to grow into a player that can hit a C grade (average) next year.

If Nurse is a F, what is Nikitin? Out of this world? Really don't agree with your grading scheme. By your definition, no bottom six forward should have an A rating because they aren't stars.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

hard to talk to you when you're up on your high horse.

because McDavid is an A does Maroon get an F because he isn't as good? no.
they are taking different tests as they have different roles on the team.

are you giving McDavid an F because he's the best player on the team and the team was in 29th place, so he failed in the task he was given? I would not.

let's use Nurse as an example. for a rookie thrown to the wolves because of injury, he gets a higher grade for his efforts than if he was a 10 year man who was signed to be a #2. not as black and white as you would make it.

It is black and white.

That's how grading works, and its how it has always worked.

McDavid performed as an A because he was in the top 7% of the league.
Maroon was a B as he played as an above average player on the Oilers, bringing physicality and nearly a PPG pace.

Nurse got lit up. He's an F.
His play ranked in the bottom 59% of the defensemen.


He has tremendous upside, and we can hope he can make the jump to being a C defenseman next season (adequate 3rd pairing), but his play was not even average for an NHL defender.

If Nurse is a F, what is Nikitin? Out of this world? Really don't agree with your grading scheme. By your definition, no bottom six forward should have an A rating because they aren't stars.

Both Nikitin and Nurse were F.

If I assigned a grade score to Nikitin, he would be close to 0%, because he is arguably the worst defender in the entire NHL. Nurse is around 40-50%.

We have by far the worst D in the league. You realise it's nearly F's all around, as it should be.


Bottom 6 forward can get an A, unless they are elite.
Selke nominees get A's.
Jere Lehtonen, Kirk Muller, and Guy Carbonneau type players get A's.

 

[Spawn]

Hall spends so much time in the neutral zone when the puck is in the the defensive zone.
While I agree Hall is the better hockey player with way more value Hopkins works harder than Hall does in the defensive zone.

You can talk about Hall having better results than Hopkins, but Hall doesn't play as hard of minutes as Hopkins does.

Hall had the toughest quality of comp on the team. He spent the entire team matched up against the other teams best lines.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Elite players can still light up the other teams top lines. Ovechkin Kane and Crosby have no issues scoring against other teams top lines, and top defenders.


Hall was not elite this year. He needs to be able to score against the opposition's top lines and top defenders if he wants to be considered elite.

 

[Spawn]

Elite players can still light up the other teams top lines. Ovechkin Kane and Crosby have no issues scoring against other teams top lines, and top defenders.


Hall was not elite this year. He needs to be able to score against the opposition's top lines and top defenders if he wants to be considered elite.

Where did I call Hall's season elite?

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Where did I call Hall's season elite?

ahh (sorry forgot to remove the quote... i click quote to reply, but usually delete the text..).

Anyways, yes I was simply pointing out, other elite players manage to output elite numbers despite those matchups, and we should expect more of Hall. It's not like Kane, Gaudreau, and Ovechkin are lining up soft minutes.

 

[Measles]

It is black and white.

That's how grading works, and its how it has always worked.

McDavid performed as an A because he was in the top 7% of the league.
Maroon was a B as he played as an above average player on the Oilers, bringing physicality and nearly a PPG pace.

Nurse got lit up. He's an F.
His play ranked in the bottom 59% of the defensemen.


He has tremendous upside, and we can hope he can make the jump to being a C defenseman next season (adequate 3rd pairing), but his play was not even average for an NHL defender.




Both Nikitin and Nurse were F.

If I assigned a grade score to Nikitin, he would be close to 0%, because he is arguably the worst defender in the entire NHL. Nurse is around 40-50%.

We have by far the worst D in the league. You realise it's nearly F's all around, as it should be.


Bottom 6 forward can get an A, unless they are elite.
Selke nominees get A's.
Jere Lehtonen, Kirk Muller, and Guy Carbonneau type players get A's.

if you're going to have an extremely condescending attitude to people about how simple grading theory is, maybe double check that you understand it yourself. You apply a percentage scale to nurse and interpret it as a PERCENTILE scale. They might sound the same but they are completely different things. Do you think the bottom 59% of students in a class get an F? By that reasoning wouldn't the bottom 59% of the defenceman on Chicago also get an F? I've never in any walk of life seen a grading scale that harsh.

 

[BoldNewLettuce]

A- mcd
B-talbot
B- -hall
C+-klefbom
C+-Davidson
C+ -drai
C+-sekera
C+-Mclellan
C+-Maroon

C-hendricks
C-RNH
C-kassian
C-letestu
C-pouliot
C-oesterle
C-gryba
C-cracknell
C- - nurse
C- - reinhart
C- - ebs

D+-pardy
D+ -korpikoski
D+-fayne
D+-yakupov
D-clendening
D-gazdic
D- -broissoit
F-lander
F-nikitin
F-Nilsson
F-Schultz
F-Woodcroft
F-refs
F-karma
F-clownshoes league

 

[thadd]

if you're going to have an extremely condescending attitude to people about how simple grading theory is, maybe double check that you understand it yourself. You apply a percentage scale to nurse and interpret it as a PERCENTILE scale. They might sound the same but they are completely different things. Do you think the bottom 59% of students in a class get an F? By that reasoning wouldn't the bottom 59% of the defenceman on Chicago also get an F? I've never in any walk of life seen a grading scale that harsh.

I hear ya.

You grade players based on what you expected them accomplish at the start of the year.

Example: If Patrick Kane gets 100% this year then the math works out the way you just explained it and 60% of the players in the league should all be bought out and publicly shamed for not scoring 100 points.

It doesn't work that way.

Nurse wasn't supposed to play in the NHL this year but injuries forced him up into the NHL and as he got more minutes due to more injuries and horrible performances by Fayne, Schultz, Ference and Nikitin that doesn't mean that the expectations for Nurse were higher and that doesn't mean that we were ever grading him like we'd grade OEL or Doughty because nobody on the planet expected Nurse to play anywhere near their league.

Unless you're grading someone like McDavid the expectations are never that high and that's especially for a rookie.

I honestly think that we're pretty hard on Drai. He came up and blew us away. Nobody expected to see such a large improvement in his game like we saw and he lost points for fading down the stretch when we never expected him to peak so high in the first place.

It's easy to justify holding players like Hall, Eberle, Hopkins and Yakupov to higher standards because the've been in the NHL for a while now. We know what to expect out of them and we're waiting for them to take the next step.... or we're waiting for Yakupov to take the first step.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

I hear ya.

You grade players based on what you expected them accomplish at the start of the year.

Example: If Patrick Kane gets 100% this year then the math works out the way you just explained it and 60% of the players in the league should all be bought out and publicly shamed for not scoring 100 points.

It doesn't work that way.

Nurse wasn't supposed to play in the NHL this year but injuries forced him up into the NHL and as he got more minutes due to more injuries and horrible performances by Fayne, Schultz, Ference and Nikitin that doesn't mean that the expectations for Nurse were higher and that doesn't mean that we were ever grading him like we'd grade OEL or Doughty because nobody on the planet expected Nurse to play anywhere near their league.

Unless you're grading someone like McDavid the expectations are never that high and that's especially for a rookie.

I honestly think that we're pretty hard on Drai. He came up and blew us away. Nobody expected to see such a large improvement in his game like we saw and he lost points for fading down the stretch when we never expected him to peak so high in the first place.

It's easy to justify holding players like Hall, Eberle, Hopkins and Yakupov to higher standards because the've been in the NHL for a while now. We know what to expect out of them and we're waiting for them to take the next step.... or we're waiting for Yakupov to take the first step.

Is this how you review movies too??


I expected the Batman v Superman movie to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

It was only a sub-mediocre movie.



Using your grading system: Batman vs Superman deserves an A+ for exceeding expectations (despite the 29% it has on RT).

 

[thadd]

Is this how you review movies too??


I expected the Batman v Superman movie to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

It was only a sub-mediocre movie.



Using your grading system: Batman vs Superman is an A+ for exceeding my expectations.

How much money did they spend on that ****** movie and how much experience did the production crew and cast of actors have? That film should have blown me away and I literally fell asleep 40 minutes into the film. Woke up about 1 hour into the film to realize that 1/3 of the people had left. I followed suit shortly after. I literally watched that before 99% of everyone else on this planet and I was so excited to get to watch it so early and it was epic fail. It gets an F.

So are you going to tell me that we should be telling Nurse, who's making 1/9 as much money as Subban and has played 1/5 as many games as Subban that he was a failure this season because he didn't play nearly as well as Subban?

If you're going to tell me that Nurse wasn't expected to get a passing grade next my brain is literally going to melt because I don't see how you can tell a youngster that they didn't play like a bust of a prospect while getting a failing grade. It makes no sense. None whatsoever.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

How much money did they spend on that ****** movie and how much experience did the production crew and cast of actors have? That film should have blown me away and I literally fell asleep 40 minutes into the film. Woke up about 1 hour into the film to realize that 1/3 of the people had left. I followed suit shortly after. I literally watched that before 99% of everyone else on this planet and I was so excited to get to watch it so early and it was epic fail. It gets an F.

So are you going to tell me that we should be telling Nurse, who's making 1/9 as much money as Subban and has played 1/5 as many games as Subban that he was a failure this season because he didn't play nearly as well as Subban?

If you're going to tell me that Nurse wasn't expected to get a passing grade next my brain is literally going to melt because I don't see how you can tell a youngster that they didn't play like a bust of a prospect while getting a failing grade. It makes no sense. None whatsoever.

But we are grading his performance in the NHL. Not his upside, his potential, or his salary.

He failed to perform as an NHL Defense man in his 69 games.

Yes, he has a LOT Of potential, yes he has a LOT of upside, and time is on his side. He will get better as he grows into his frame, and with more experience, but none of those things factor into the rating of his performance.

And by every metric imaginable he was a total train wreck statistically and visually. The entire Darnell Nurse thread is every poster re-iterating that he should be in the AHL.

 

[thadd]

But we are grading his performance in the NHL. Not his upside, his potential, or his salary.

He failed to perform as an NHL Defense man in his 69 games.

Yes, he has a LOT Of potential, yes he has a LOT of upside, and time is on his side. He will get better as he grows into his frame, and with more experience, but none of those things factor into the rating of his performance.

And by every metric imaginable he was a total train wreck statistically and visually. The entire Darnell Nurse thread is every poster re-iterating that he should be in the AHL.

What?!?

OK so if he was on a contract year does that mean we'd be taking him to arbitration and be attempting to sign him at league minimum or something?

Your application of logic is literally confusing the **** out of me.

Are you saying that you expected him to get a failing grade?

Are you saying that the deck is stacked against 90% of the players in the league so there's no point grading or critiquing their play since nobody expected them to live up to the grading scale?

I'll say it again. Nurse wasn't expected to play for the Oilers this year. They sent him down to the AHL to develop and the team was forced to call him up due to injuries and poor performances by other d-men.

Nobody expected him him to reach his potential or even look like a top 4 d-man... and by your method of grading players there is no such thing as a top 4 d-man or a top paring d-man. Instead of top pairing d-man or top 4 d-man you have a bunch of failures 90% of the time.

So when management address the media shortly before the draft you're saying that they should say that they're looking for a failure of a d-man that can play 25 minutes per game and another failure of a d-man that can play 20 minutes while playing big minutes on the power play. Right?

Even if Edmonton made the best moves possible to address their weaknesses in the off-season it's a huge stretch of the imagination to think that they're going to make the playoffs.

So let's say we draft one of those flashy right wingers
Then we trade 2 of Hall, Hopkins Eberle and cash in with Trouba and Hamonic.
Then we trade Yakupov for a middle six forward, sign a legit 3rd line C and we miss the playoffs by 5 points next year we've obviously come a long way but we're still failures for missing the playoffs despite the fact that we had one of the biggest turnaround years in the history of our storied franchise.

If that's what you call a failure then I have no idea how you can stand the thought of watching sports.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

What?!?
OK so if he was on a contract year does that mean we'd be taking him to arbitration and be attempting to sign him at league minimum or something?

No. We graded his performance relative to his NHL Peers.

He is still a valuable prospect with immense upside, but if we are judging his performance in the NHL, he deserves an F.

Your application of logic is literally confusing the **** out of me.

Are you saying that you expected him to get a failing grade?

Yes. He should not have been in the NHL this year.

Are you saying that the deck is stacked against 90% of the players in the league so there's no point grading or critiquing their play since nobody expected them to live up to the grading scale?

The grading scale where half of this team gets A's and B's is ridiculous. We are the metaphorical "BATMAN v SUPERMAN" of hockey clubs.

I'll say it again. Nurse wasn't expected to play for the Oilers this year. They sent him down to the AHL to develop and the team was forced to call him up due to injuries and poor performances by other d-men.

Yup, and his play showed it. He was not an NHL caliber Dman this season.

Nobody expected him him to reach his potential or even look like a top 4 d-man... and by your method of grading players there is no such thing as a top 4 d-man or a top paring d-man. Instead of top pairing d-man or top 4 d-man you have a bunch of failures 90% of the time.

?

It's the easiest thing to grade. You grade his performance relative to all Dmen in the NHL. Nurse was among the lowest performing Dmen in the league.

So when management address the media shortly before the draft you're saying that they should say that they're looking for a failure of a d-man that can play 25 minutes per game and another failure of a d-man that can play 20 minutes while playing big minutes on the power play. Right?

We need an A on our top pairing. (Keith)
We need a B on our 2nd Pairing (Hjalmersson)
The rest of the lineup we would prefer to have C's or above.

Even if Edmonton made the best moves possible to address their weaknesses in the off-season it's a huge stretch of the imagination to think that they're going to make the playoffs.

So let's say we draft one of those flashy right wingers
Then we trade 2 of Hall, Hopkins Eberle and cash in with Trouba and Hamonic.
Then we trade Yakupov for a middle six forward, sign a legit 3rd line C and we miss the playoffs by 5 points next year we've obviously come a long way but we're still failures for missing the playoffs despite the fact that we had one of the biggest turnaround years in the history of our storied franchise.

Yes. Failing to make the playoffs is still a failure.

If you score 20% on a test, and then your next test you score 48%, you still 'failed' despite a massive increase in your grade.


How does this not make sense?