Post-Game Talk: A successful season?

[tardigrade81]

So…. I guess I don’t have to eat A and W anymore……

Not sure if I’m happy or sad about that.

 

[bone]

It was some guy walking in a bog towards the Stanley cup, then gets hit by a photoshopped broom with a Avs logo on it and some song was playing.

Funny considering Roger’s is our arena sponsor.

And they had an Oilers logo over his face. Included a hash tag for GoAvsGo and Carry me Home (from All the Small Things which is one of the songs Avs fans always sing along to even after the music stops).

It was a full on troll posted on the Twitter page of our broadcast rights holder owned by the same company our building is named after. There better be an explanation instead of just a deleted tweet.

You can see a picture of the gif in this post, but doesn't give you the whole gif.

 

[iCanada]

I don't think you are getting my point. I know what the rulebook says. I read it. The rulebook does not discuss rebounds from high-stick deflections one way or the other. It says you are not allowed to score from a stick above the crossbar.

I'm saying rather than saying it is illegal to score on a high stick, it is much more logical to say it is illegal to direct a puck at the net with a stick that is above the crossbar. Logical, consistent, easy to interpret and apply.

Think about it this way. If Smith gets out of the way, the goal is called back. How is Smith supposed to determine whether to get out of the way or not within a millisecond? What happens if the puck touches Smith on the way into the net? Good goal, or bad goal? I don't know based on the rule. But it's the same play, whether it goes straight in, grazes Smith on the way by, or bounces off him to an attacker scoring on the rebound. The high-stick happens the same distance from the net, so saying you can't use the crossbar in that situation makes no sense.

By corollary, you aren't allowed to have a shot on net during a delayed offside. You blow it immediately because that shot is illegal (you should not have any advantage, goal, rebound or even frozen puck face-off based on that shot... because the shot itself is illegal). Similarly any shot with a high stick should be illegal. Remove the ambiguity.

No, you're missing the boat.

Would have been called off for 80.1, couldn't challenge 80.3 as they score on the rebound. Can't use 80.3 as they don't score on the high stick.

Imagine he high sticks it in slot, then it drops dead at his feet, and then he shoots it. The rule book sees it that way. You can only challenge the missed stoppage per 80.1 and not tipping puck in from high stick via 80.3.

 

[rboomercat90]

There is a long list

Plante, paajarvi, yakupov, JP

Just first rounders. Before Plante it’s even worse.

We had about 10 years worth (although it felt much longer than that) of first round flops before Jason Arnott was drafted and a whole bunch more through out the 90’s and 00’s. J.P. Is nowhere near the top of the list.

 

[K1984]

Smith is the anti-Grant Fuhr.

Unreal when it doesn't really matter as much, but swiss cheese when you absolutely need a save. Been that way the whole playoff.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I don't think you are getting my point. I know what the rulebook says. I read it. The rulebook does not discuss rebounds from high-stick deflections one way or the other. It says you are not allowed to score from a stick above the crossbar.

I'm saying rather than saying it is illegal to score on a high stick, it is much more logical to say it is illegal to direct a puck at the net with a stick that is above the crossbar. Logical, consistent, easy to interpret and apply.

Think about it this way. If Smith gets out of the way, the goal is called back. How is Smith supposed to determine whether to get out of the way or not within a millisecond? What happens if the puck touches Smith on the way into the net? Good goal, or bad goal? I don't know based on the rule. But it's the same play, whether it goes straight in, grazes Smith on the way by, or bounces off him to an attacker scoring on the rebound. The high-stick happens the same distance from the net, so saying you can't use the crossbar in that situation makes no sense.

By corollary, you aren't allowed to have a shot on net during a delayed offside. You blow it immediately because that shot is illegal (you should not have any advantage, goal, rebound or even frozen puck face-off based on that shot... because the shot itself is illegal). Similarly any shot with a high stick should be illegal. Remove the ambiguity.

Bang. In so many situations the NHL ends up making up rules that are harder to enforce, that involved subjectivity, potentially conflicting views, That don't work clearly in all situations. I like that somebody is taking the time to expand on it. From the perspective of a goalie its perplexing for the reasons you mentioned. A highstick on puck should stop play. It should be on a set point, crossbar, not where shoulders are at. If they miss the call there should be goal review to determine if there was a highstick preceding goal and the play called back.

 

[Vakarte]

Would you guys say the Oilers defensive problems is on goaltending or on the defensive core not being good enough? Or both?

 

[Frank the Tank]

I'll never forget being back home and in the building surrounded by Oilers fans for the Game 3 and 4 wins over Calgary. I attended a few Hawks playoffs games during Chicago's 2010-2015 runs and the atmosphere in the United Center wasn't as intense a Rogers Place (too many bandwagon fans only there to get a selfie or use their attendance as a status symbol).

I'd like to see this Oilers team after a full training camp with Woodcroft and Manson

 

[BudBundy]

I mean let's face it. The Pacific division was the worst division in the NHL by a lot this year. So coming out of that division and getting swept is kinda like being the tallest midget.

And it's hard to congratulate the Oilers org when everyone who has ever laced up a skate knew the team was going no where with Smith in net and nothing was done about it.

I think the Oilers need scoring depth and goaltending the most. Guys like Yamamoto and Puiji should be traded if there any takers out there. You can't just hold on to draft prospects and hope forever. And ya Kane is gone so new bodies are needed.

Is there an “unlike” button for this post. It needs one.

 

[tardigrade81]

I’m not a fan of the whining about reffing.

Makes the fan base look really bad.

I never complain about the officiating. Or try not to at least

 

[Mr Positive]

Would you guys say the Oilers defensive problems is on goaltending or on the defensive core not being good enough? Or both?

it is both. I actually think the defense was okay. It was just very bad next to what the Avs could do.

I want to give Smith some credit, because defense does have a direct result on goaltending. I just can't. He let in a lot of goals in the last two periods of that game, and they weren't all cross ice impossible shots. I think there may be some kind of cumulative effect, like maybe good defense will somehow make a goalie play better, and bad doing the inverse. I think it might lead to them being too aggressive and other bad habits creeping in. So maybe that's how I can be charitable to him.

 

[Ninety7]

Would you guys say the Oilers defensive problems is on goaltending or on the defensive core not being good enough? Or both?

More so on the goaltending but the D was pretty bad this series too.

The avs had their way with our blue line. They entered at will with their speed, and it was hard for our D to stop their cycle down low. Lot of errors as well by us.

As for goaltending… We unfortunately got Mike smiths lesser alter ego version

 

[frag2]

Interesting. So both the Score and Sportsnet took down their shitty troll tweets.

I wonder if Oilers legit got pissed off about it and threatened to cut off media access. f*** them. Just go to TSN. At least they aren't amateur hour over there [or as bad]

 

[Ninety7]

it is both. I actually think the defense was okay. It was just very bad next to what the Avs could do.

I want to give Smith some credit, because defense does have a direct result on goaltending. I just can't. He let in a lot of goals in the last two periods of that game, and they weren't all cross ice impossible shots. I think there may be some kind of cumulative effect, like maybe good defense will somehow make a goalie play better, and bad doing the inverse. I think it might lead to them being too aggressive and other bad habits creeping in. So maybe that's how I can be charitable to him.

It would be absolutely brutal for your mental well being playing in front of smith. These guys have seriously been put through an emotional ringer because of him lol. Score huge goals constantly to have them be negated from absolute softies.

That and the arms up and death stare to your own team after goals would really throw you off.

 

[jesusbuiltmyhotrod]

Interesting. So both the Score and Sportsnet took down their shitty troll tweets.

I wonder if Oilers legit got pissed off about it and threatened to cut off media access. f*** them. Just go to TSN. At least they aren't amateur hour over there [or as bad]

Canadian hockey media is utter garbage.

 

[bucks_oil]

No, you're missing the boat.

Would have been called off for 80.1, couldn't challenge 80.3 as they score on the rebound. Can't use 80.3 as they don't score on the high stick.

Imagine he high sticks it in slot, then it drops dead at his feet, and then he shoots it. The rule book sees it that way. You can only challenge the missed stoppage per 80.1 and not tipping puck in from high stick via 80.3.

Sorry... no you are missing the boat. I'm not arguing about what the rule book says, and I'm not saying they got the call wrong based on what is written. I'm saying the rulebook is illogical in this case and should be changed. Very simply:

1) The rulebook says it is illegal to score from a high stick (above the crossbar)
2) The purpose of a shot/deflection is to score
3) Therefore, if it is illegal to score from a high stick, it stands to reason it should be illegal to shoot/deflect with a high stick.

This same logic is applied (correctly) to offsides: it is illegal to score while offside, therefore it is illegal to even shoot while offside. It's logical and the same logic should apply to high sticks.

It's very simple logic. If a team can't score with a high stick, then they should not get the advantage of a rebound from a high stick.

The standard of the crossbar should apply to any puck directed at net. It makes no sense to say "it went in, therefore the crossbar matters" and on the next identical play "the goalie touched it, therefore the shoulder matters". In both cases the puck was directed at net, same standard should apply.

PS: To your example, if the puck dropped at his feet, it isn't directed at the net, so I agree in that case it would be ok to use the shoulder to determine. But that isn't what happened here.

 

[BudBundy]

Would you guys say the Oilers defensive problems is on goaltending or on the defensive core not being good enough? Or both?

Both.

A big part of it was the Nurse injury. Bouchard played very well for his first full time NHL season but he was still a rookie being leaned on very heavily. Keith has his moments but should be a bottom pairing guy. Barrie played well in sheltered minutes but the fact is that he HAS to be sheltered. Ceci played very well all year. No complaints. Kulak was excellent bang for the buck. No complaints.

As for Smith, he’s going to have fantastic moments and horrific moments. You just don’t know which, and when.

 

[Mr Positive]

It would be absolutely brutal for your mental well being playing in front of smith. These guys have seriously been put through an emotional ringer because of him lol. Score huge goals constantly to have them be negated from absolute softies.

That and the arms up and death stare to your own team after goals would really throw you off.

i remember Smith even looking like he was staring at one of his D on that 124 footer he let in haha.

It seems like the team likes him though

 

[frag2]

Canadian hockey media is utter garbage.

Oh for sure. If you're not Toronto or oddly the Flames, you dont deserve any benefit of doubt.
The fact that major of these f***ers also decide/vote for majority of the league awards as well...smfh

 

[fireantz]

Would you guys say the Oilers defensive problems is on goaltending or on the defensive core not being good enough? Or both?

Both! Plus our forwards aren’t invested enough in the d-side of the game. Too much “looking for a stretch pass” not enough 5 man zone exits

 

[Sweetpotato]

Would you guys say the Oilers defensive problems is on goaltending or on the defensive core not being good enough? Or both?

Our players we felt weren't good enough defensively or who were injured cost us dearly. Smith was too inconsistent. He was damn good sometimes and terrible other times.

Nurse healthy, Barrie replaced with a more balanced player like Ceci, Kulak, etc. This series plays out very differently. If Holland goes into next year with Bouchard and Barrie still on the team I feel that's just as egregious as having Smith and Koskinen this last season.

Nurse has to be told that he needs to rest up, recover and come back as the Nurse of 2021 and the first 20 games of this season or fans will run his ass out of town.

 

[fancy dan]

you HAVE to move on from both these goalies. I'm not sure how you can watch the last three years, the last playoffs and think you can go forward with a 41 year old smith.

 

[bone]

Interesting. So both the Score and Sportsnet took down their shitty troll tweets.

I wonder if Oilers legit got pissed off about it and threatened to cut off media access. f*** them. Just go to TSN. At least they aren't amateur hour over there [or as bad]

I don't even care that there is a bit of bias that creeps into the national broadcasts sometimes, but this was full on trolling a very specific customer base complete with an active hashtag supporting a team that they don't have any specific rights to whatsoever.

The Steve Dangle stuff, fine. That's his schtick and those who like him understand it is mostly for entertainment so I'm okay with that, but that gif was not cool with me. I'd maybe be a little more forgiving if they had done something similar for all teams once eliminated if they are trying to be edgy, but why pull it out for the first time mocking a team you own the broadcast rights and building name right to.

All I know is deleting it isn't enough. Too many people saw it. They need to explain why it happened and what was done about it.

 

[Mr Positive]

you HAVE to move on from both these goalies. I'm not sure how you can watch the last three years, the last playoffs and think you can go forward with a 41 year old smith.

honestly even if we have zero options with Smith, just waiving him is certaintly an option.

There's got to be options out there who would take a little bit of a show me deal. Husso and Campbell had rough ends to their runs, which could keep their AAV down if the term was low. The other one is obvious: Skinner. It could translate into a relatively cheap tandem that would be above average.

 

[bucks_oil]

Bang. In so many situations the NHL ends up making up rules that are harder to enforce, that involved subjectivity, potentially conflicting views, That don't work clearly in all situations. I like that somebody is taking the time to expand on it. From the perspective of a goalie its perplexing for the reasons you mentioned. A highstick on puck should stop play. It should be on a set point, crossbar, not where shoulders are at. If they miss the call there should be goal review to determine if there was a highstick preceding goal and the play called back.

Exactly... you put the goalie in a stupid situation. If the shot is deflected with a high stick you are making the goalie make a stupid choice:
1) Was it clearly a high stick? Better to get out of the way... since I wouldn't want my save to negate the high stick
2) Is it borderline? Better save it...

This makes no sense and it isn't in the spirit of the rule. If directing the puck at the net with a high stick is unfair, it's ALWAYS unfair, whether the goalie saves it or not.

And it makes zero sense to say:
1) Directing the puck at the net with a high stick is fair
2) Directing the puck in the net with a high stick is unfair

Ask yourself WHY within the spirit of the rules would we want #1 to be true? It's the SAME ACT that is clearly unfair under #2.

Just another case of poor drafting which obscures the intent of the rule. The basic premise here is directing the puck from above the crossbar is an unfair advantage, regardless of outcome.