Are the Oilers a top 5 contender next season with Jack Campbell?

[John Mandalorian]

fixed that for you

Who's the one who's really laughing?

 

[2023FriendshipTour]

the "Edmonton is no good" thread on CP is the single most embarrassing thread ever, and the most active
imagine being so obsessed with all things Edmonton, you have a thread dedicated to us

we really live in Flames fans head

Imagine being so obsessed you go to CP as an Oiler fan to read it.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

I think because the Avs-Oilers series was a sweep, some people have got the idea that Edmonton got steam-rolled or something. They did not. Consider the following:

-- The Oilers were forced to play their top D-man (Nurse) with a major injury. He couldn't even skate to retrieve loose pucks and was a complete disaster.
-- The Oilers' top goal scorer (Drai) was injured.

So, okay, they had injuries, as did Colorado. But we're talking about their top Dman (30 min. per game and was useless in this series was giving goals away) and a recent Art Ross / Hart winner who was basically immobile.

Anyway, the actual games:

-- In game 1, the Avs blew a 7-3 lead and were at 7-6 in the third. The only reason it wasn't tied is the NHL's bizarre interpretation of "offside" that counters all known logic. Teams that are significantly better don't usually blow 4-goal leads in a playoff game, at home.
-- In game 2, the Avs were clearly better. (Even though all the damage was done in a 124-second span.)
-- Game 3 could have gone either way; a one-goal Avs' win.
-- Game 4 could have gone either way; a one-goal Avs' win in overtime.

Three of the four games were very "winnable" for Edmonton. I would suggest if the Oilers had had anybody but Mike Smith in goal for game one, it would have at least been to overtime or they might have won. Games three and four were coin-flips.

So, then, add in a healthy Nurse and Draisaitl and it's probably a five or six-game series.

Then, Edmonton should be a bit better this upcoming season, and I think Colorado should be a bit (not a lot) worse, though obviously it's debatable.


The one big advantage the Avalanche are going to continue to have over the Oilers is on defense. Makar is a law unto himself, and they just have a talented, super-fast puck moving D-core. The Oilers will not be able to match that anytime soon.

Four wins to zero. That’s not close no matter how much mental gymnastics you go through. Win a few games against Colorado like St. Louis and Tampa did and then you can make injury and other excuses.

 

[BlueBaron]

oilers beat a team better (in every metric) than the team who beat the leafs....

Enlighten us. Which magical team is better than Tampa?

LA?

This is a new to Hockey statement.

 

[The Panther]

Four wins to zero. That’s not close no matter how much mental gymnastics you go through. Win a few games against Colorado like St. Louis and Tampa did and then you can make injury and other excuses.

St. Louis also lost two 2-goal games, which the Oilers did only once.

Tampa lost 7-0 to Colorado, a far worse loss than any the Oilers had.

It's not "mental gymnastics" to state that three of four games were very close. It's a fact.

 

[La Bamba]

Enlighten us. Which magical team is better than Tampa?

LA?

This is a new to Hockey statement.

the leafs lose to anyone in the 1st round so idk why this is even a discussion

 

[John Mandalorian]

St. Louis also lost two 2-goal games, which the Oilers did only once.

Tampa lost 7-0 to Colorado, a far worse loss than any the Oilers had.

It's not "mental gymnastics" to state that three of four games were very close. It's a fact.

Why do you think this matters?

 

[BlueBaron]

the leafs lose to anyone in the 1st round so idk why this is even a discussion

I doubt any of us care about the extensive list of things you don't know. In the future I'd ask you to refrain from wasting my time with it.

 

[The90]

St. Louis also lost two 2-goal games, which the Oilers did only once.

Tampa lost 7-0 to Colorado, a far worse loss than any the Oilers had.

It's not "mental gymnastics" to state that three of four games were very close. It's a fact.

You just might have some of the most bizarre mental gymnastics on this site lol. 70% of your posts I come across leave me scratching my head.

Everyone and their dog would rather play the oilers than Tampa or St Louis. Tampa lost 7-2 then beat Colorado twice. Edmonton didn’t beat them once. How is that not mental gymnastics?

Why do you think this matters?

Because it makes him feel better about it

 

[The Panther]

Why do you think this matters?

I don't. I was responding to a poster -- who shall rename nameless but has made 10,000 posts of nonsense in this thread -- who argues that because St. Louis and Tampa won a game or two vs. Colorado and Edmonton didn't, they are much better opponents for the mighty Avalanche. And that a four-game series cannot, in any way, be "close".

 

[The Panther]

Because it makes him feel better about it

You may have fooled yourself, but not us. In reality, all of your posts on this (very weird) thread are to convince yourself that the mighty Maple Leafs lost in the first round to the greatest hockey team in the world (except Colorado, maybe) whom all other clubs who actually did better than the Leafs (like Edmonton) would have been swept by... Yet the Leafs took Tampa to seven games, so they MUST BE A GREAT TEAM!!

And then you accuse me of mental gymnastics for pointing out the indisputable fact that three of the four EDM-COL games were very close 1-goal games that could have gone either way.

I mean, I feel for you, man. Unless you're 70, you've never team your team succeed. I have seen my team win five Stanley Cups and will die with that satisfaction, even if they never win again.

Let's see... you have to win four rounds to take the Cup. The last time the Leafs won three playoff rounds was, I believe, 1932.

I mean, they're probably due in the next eighty, ninety years, so if you can stay alive that long....?

 

[Chayos]

Wow 900 posts on this garbage?? The oilers haven’t proven themselves a contender by any standard yet. They are a better team on paper than last year, but that is not tested and so we can all speculate on what will be or what was. Us Oiler fans need to stand down on the rhetoric and just watch how things go before we start patting ourselves on the back for the cup we are going to win. Mcdavid said the same thing this week.

 

[olafsson]

Defence is still a mess, borderline bad, and the goaltending is still questionable at best. Oilers are going nowhere yet again

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

 

[nammerus]

I think because the Avs-Oilers series was a sweep, some people have got the idea that Edmonton got steam-rolled or something. They did not. Consider the following:

-- The Oilers were forced to play their top D-man (Nurse) with a major injury. He couldn't even skate to retrieve loose pucks and was a complete disaster.
-- The Oilers' top goal scorer (Drai) was injured.

So, okay, they had injuries, as did Colorado. But we're talking about their top Dman (30 min. per game and was useless in this series was giving goals away) and a recent Art Ross / Hart winner who was basically immobile.

Anyway, the actual games:

-- In game 1, the Avs blew a 7-3 lead and were at 7-6 in the third. The only reason it wasn't tied is the NHL's bizarre interpretation of "offside" that counters all known logic. Teams that are significantly better don't usually blow 4-goal leads in a playoff game, at home.
-- In game 2, the Avs were clearly better. (Even though all the damage was done in a 124-second span.)
-- Game 3 could have gone either way; a one-goal Avs' win.
-- Game 4 could have gone either way; a one-goal Avs' win in overtime.

Three of the four games were very "winnable" for Edmonton. I would suggest if the Oilers had had anybody but Mike Smith in goal for game one, it would have at least been to overtime or they might have won. Games three and four were coin-flips.

So, then, add in a healthy Nurse and Draisaitl and it's probably a five or six-game series.

Then, Edmonton should be a bit better this upcoming season, and I think Colorado should be a bit (not a lot) worse, though obviously it's debatable.


The one big advantage the Avalanche are going to continue to have over the Oilers is on defense. Makar is a law unto himself, and they just have a talented, super-fast puck moving D-core. The Oilers will not be able to match that anytime soon.

Man. I didn’t even think of it that way. If the refs weren’t in the Avs pocket, take out 124 seconds of game 2, and a couple lucky bounces go the Oilers way, they might have actually swept the Avs.

 

[John Mandalorian]

I don't. I was responding to a poster -- who shall rename nameless but has made 10,000 posts of nonsense in this thread -- who argues that because St. Louis and Tampa won a game or two vs. Colorado and Edmonton didn't, they are much better opponents for the mighty Avalanche. And that a four-game series cannot, in any way, be "close".

I think what you're missing is that a lot of people see winning and losing as binary. Either you were good enough to win or you weren't. And to, as you say, come close 3 times and not succeed doesn't help. It has this aspect of inevitability to it. "Yeah, the Oilers might have been in three of those games but the Avs had an answer every time. The Oilers lost by 1 but they might as well have lost by 5 since they were never going going to be able to push the rock up the hill." This is likely a perception that many have and that you seem to be missing. No one is required to give Edmonton style points for being defeated each time.

Being able to win a game in a series is something on its own. Credit goes to Edmonton for beating the teams that were in front of them until the WCF - at least they made it there. But that also doesn't dismiss the series Toronto had against the 2 time defending Champs where they at least won 3 games.

 

[SnipeShowJB11]

I think what you're missing is that a lot of people see winning and losing as binary. Either you were good enough to win or you weren't. And to, as you say, come close 3 times and not succeed doesn't help. It has this aspect of inevitability to it. "Yeah, the Oilers might have been in three of those games but the Avs had an answer every time. The Oilers lost by 1 but they might as well have lost by 5 since they were never going going to be able to push the rock up the hill." This is likely a perception that many have and that you seem to be missing. No one is required to give Edmonton style points for being defeated each time.

Being able to win a game in a series is something on its own. Credit goes to Edmonton for beating the teams that were in front of them until the WCF - at least they made it there. But that also doesn't dismiss the series Toronto had against the 2 time defending Champs where they at least won 3 games.

Those handshakes were some of the greatest we have seen. Also, the stars not getting it done in game 6 and 7, something we have seen over and over again.

 

[HockeyFan100]

Lol no, Oilers will be lucky to get past the 1st round. Overrated team.

 

[The Panther]

I think what you're missing is that a lot of people see winning and losing as binary. Either you were good enough to win or you weren't. And to, as you say, come close 3 times and not succeed doesn't help. It has this aspect of inevitability to it. "Yeah, the Oilers might have been in three of those games but the Avs had an answer every time. The Oilers lost by 1 but they might as well have lost by 5 since they were never going going to be able to push the rock up the hill." This is likely a perception that many have and that you seem to be missing. No one is required to give Edmonton style points for being defeated each time.

Being able to win a game in a series is something on its own. Credit goes to Edmonton for beating the teams that were in front of them until the WCF - at least they made it there. But that also doesn't dismiss the series Toronto had against the 2 time defending Champs where they at least won 3 games.

I think what you're missing is that a lot of people see winning and losing as binary. Either you were good enough to win or you weren't. And to, as you say, come close 100 times and not succeed doesn't help. It has this aspect of inevitability to it. "Yeah, the Leafs might have been in all of those series but the Bruins / Lightning had an answer every time. The Leafs lost by 1 game but they might as well have been swept since they were never going going to be able to push the rock up the hill." This is likely a perception that many have and that you seem to be missing. No one is required to give Toronto style points for being defeated each time.

 

[The Panther]

We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether the Oilers last spring competitively challenged the Avalanche or not. To me, there is a world of difference between being swept like the Islanders were swept by the Rangers in 1994 (as one example) and the way the banged-up Oilers were swept last spring. Some of you disagree and think if you were swept, therefore you're not even close. Okay, I think I'm done with that.

The topic of the thread is next season. My take would be:

-- Jack Campbell by himself is probably average, but more 'averageness' is what the Oilers need in net. The combo of Campbell and Skinner is likely to alleviate much of the mental grief and unpredictability that Mike Smith (and to a lesser extent, Koskinen) gave the Oilers. So, even though the stats might be merely equaled and not improved, this is overall a plus for Edmonton. Sometimes it's not only about improving the stats, it's also about improving the morale and team culture.

-- The Oilers are somewhat a better team than last season, especially when compared to the start of last season (out: Smith & Tippett; in: Woodcroft & Kane). The Avalanche are somewhat a worse team than last season by personnel, I think.

-- If the Oilers can stay healthy, I think they have a decent chance to take out the Avalanche next season, should they meet again (which, of course, is mathematically unlikely).

-- The Oilers clearly have a considerably worse defence than Colorado, barring a miracle.

In sum, my guess is that Campbell's presence alone doesn't really change much to the Oilers, but I think he will continue the improvement of the team culture. (Zach Hyman and Evander Kane were very important in this regard, also.)

Whether or not any team is a "top 5" contender is a meaningless expression anyway. You either win or you don't; there's no "contender" status bestowed. But the Oilers were in the final four last season, and I don't see any particular reason why they shouldn't be as good as last year, so they certainly have a chance to be there again if healthy. The question is whether another Pacific division club will step up.

 

[Conbon]

Predictable and Jack Campbell are 2 words not supposed to be used in the same sentence lol

That goes for any goalie in Toronto until they leave. Your dcore is bad and makes your goalies look worse.

 

[The90]

That goes for any goalie in Toronto until they leave. Your dcore is bad and makes your goalies look worse.

Totally. It’s why they keep losing!

 

[TheOrangeDesk]

.

 

[Spirits]

Oilers are obviously not real contenders.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Oilers are obviously not real contenders.

Only the Avalanche and Bolts are, everyone else is irrelevant.