Post-Game Talk: Oilers get reverse goalied

[OfCorsiDid]

No, Presidents trophy is a bad omen...I will be happy with first in division or conference.

It may be, for other teams.

Last time we won the President’s Trophy was 1986-87.

This is how that season ended:

 

[Drivesaitl]

I feel the same way about most of them.

I swear that the broadcasters exist just to be annoying. For decades I've been saying just televise the games with no commentary, just rink sounds, thats it, thats all. Its the producers that figure we need all this talking head bs. Gives them something to do.

At least provide the audio option of no commentating. Would be so easy for them to just leave that as an option. I'd pay extra for it.

Same thing with Radio. Stopped listening decades ago when it started to be more talk then just playing music.

and people wonder why I detest podcasts. its all talking with zero content. lol what a sorry format.

 

[Oilhawks]

Gotta laugh. Fans disappointed in team effort and goaltending, but also take first in the division.

Oilers consistently winning but have obvious flaws. Hope it doesn’t take a turn in the playoffs.

Yup, they need a better tandem goalie

 

[guymez]

It may be, for other teams.

Last time we won the President’s Trophy was 1986-87.

This is how that season ended:

You have to think that having home ice advantage for the entire playoffs would help the SC quest.

 

[iCanada]

Skinner #1 steals his second game of the year!

Juggernaut!

What strange combination of words to post at game 49.

We don't need a goaltender folks - we have the better goalie 4% of the time.

 

[TB12]

What strange combination of words to post at game 49.

We don't need a goaltender folks - we have the better goalie 4% of the time.

Like.

 

[CupofOil]

Because he was not great in the 1st.

My problem with any of it is that when he plays like ass, admit he's playing like ass.

I can freely admit when he plays well. It doesn't happen enough for a team with cup aspirations. His top end talent is tremendous, his problem has always been consistency. Dude is basically Bouchard in goalie gear. World beater or dogshit, nothing in between.

The issue for me is that people actually defended his play against the Capitals. It's hard to take anyone take seriously when you they do that.

Outside of maybe one or two posters, the Caps PGT was full of Skinner is terrible posts as is the case with like 90% of PGT even in games when he played fairly well.

As somebody who defends Skinner more than most, I'll admit that he hasn't been good enough as a whole this season but the amount of hate this guy gets on the regular is too much for a guy that has shouldered the load of a #1 goalie the previous 2 seasons and put up some pretty good regular season numbers and played toe to toe with Oettinger and Bobrovsky in last years' playoffs.

I don't have the utmost confidence in Skinner to be THE guy to lead the Oilers to a cup although I think he's capable but he's better than he gets credit for from a certain group of posters who treat him like an average NHL backup at best.

 

[Zerotonine]

2-1 without the captain. Pretty good.

Should of been 3 0. We dominated the caps. I'll leave it at that

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

Should of been 3 0. We dominated the caps. I'll leave it at that

Yes, 2 wins, they played 2 really good games and were fortunate it one, the same way they weren't in one of the really good games. It's balances out.

 

[Stoneman89]

Vegas in their tradtional mid season slump and the Oilers catch up and PASS them. They had a massive lead as well. Maybe Vegas isn't hot after all

It's a long long season and it's really hard to be consistently great for 82 games. Oilers were never that bad in the first few weeks and Vegas never that good. There are going to be ebbs and flows all year. Both are very good teams.

 

[McTedi]

I swear that the broadcasters exist just to be annoying. For decades I've been saying just televise the games with no commentary, just rink sounds, thats it, thats all. Its the producers that figure we need all this talking head bs. Gives them something to do.

At least provide the audio option of no commentating. Would be so easy for them to just leave that as an option. I'd pay extra for it.

Same thing with Radio. Stopped listening decades ago when it started to be more talk then just playing music.

and people wonder why I detest podcasts. its all talking with zero content. lol what a sorry format.

That being said way back when there was 3 channels and everyone watched HNC on Saturday night, there were some iconic broadcasters. They were homers for sure but always for the Canadian teams. Or nostalgia has warped my memory and they weren’t that good lol.

 

[Drivesaitl]

That being said way back when there was 3 channels and everyone watched HNC on Saturday night, there were some iconic broadcasters. They were homers for sure but always for the Canadian teams. Or nostalgia has warped my memory and they weren’t that good lol.

At that time they were good because it was still part of first waves that loved doing what they did, that were good at it and that honed their teeth usually for decades doing radio broadcasts, for local town teams etc. These guys understood their sports their audience, what information would appeal, entice, and also at a time where such things were closely reviewed and considered. So that when somebody like Foster Hewitt got a gig the guy was best in field and earned it. Bob Cole seems to have been the last of the older bunch that had really developed their skills.

Now sports broadcasting seems to be something that people fall into. Often ex players themselves. Most not that good at commentary and all of them not having life long experience in broadcasting.

 

[FiveFourteenSixOne]

I swear that the broadcasters exist just to be annoying. For decades I've been saying just televise the games with no commentary, just rink sounds, thats it, thats all. Its the producers that figure we need all this talking head bs. Gives them something to do.

At least provide the audio option of no commentating. Would be so easy for them to just leave that as an option. I'd pay extra for it.

Same thing with Radio. Stopped listening decades ago when it started to be more talk then just playing music.

and people wonder why I detest podcasts. its all talking with zero content. lol what a sorry format.

You senile 'ol pig! Talk is all I listen to!

 

[Drivesaitl]

You senile 'ol pig! Talk is all I listen to!

haha. Talk radio is what made me STOP listening to radio. Fortunately it was also the time where vehicles stopped having 8 track players and thankfully more reliable formats. lol. All I listen to at home is music or in the vehicle, music. NEVER radio. Wife is a radio fan though. Much to my misery. Right now its on a Country station again. oh no...

 

[Zerotonine]

Yes, 2 wins, they played 2 really good games and were fortunate it one, the same way they weren't in one of the really good games. It's balances out.

No not really. True number 1 should steal you more games then he looses you ....

 

[Jimmi McJenkins]

No not really. True number 1 should steal you more games then he looses you ....

Ah so it's the old "I've decided it doesn't count" situation. Fair enough, good luck with that.

 

[Sanderson]

At that time they were good because it was still part of first waves that loved doing what they did, that were good at it and that honed their teeth usually for decades doing radio broadcasts, for local town teams etc. These guys understood their sports their audience, what information would appeal, entice, and also at a time where such things were closely reviewed and considered. So that when somebody like Foster Hewitt got a gig the guy was best in field and earned it. Bob Cole seems to have been the last of the older bunch that had really developed their skills.

Now sports broadcasting seems to be something that people fall into. Often ex players themselves. Most not that good at commentary and all of them not having life long experience in broadcasting.

That sounds like revisionist history to me, with a whole lot of assumptions on top of it.

There is zero reason to assume that those who got the job back then loved the game any more than those who do it today. There is also no reason to assume that they somehow knew better what the audience wanted, which isn't even taking into account that what the majority of people like changes over time. What may have been "right" for older audiences may not be right one or two decades later.

Your argument basically amounts to "these old guys did it in a way I liked, and the new guys don't", and then you proceed to project your subjective opinion onto the audience as a whole, even though you have nothing to support that theory with. If they adjust their style to cater to what the majority of people want today, and you just happen to not be among that group, then they are doing exactly what you are praising the old guys for. But you ignore it, because their style goes against what you want.

It's also not true that they somehow "developed their skills" back then yet don't do the exact same thing today. Or that they somehow fall into the job. You get some former players in a supporting role, but play-by-play is almost entirely done by people who have done that job for ages and went through all the steps you always had to go through to reach the "top job" as television play-by-play commentator.

One key difference is that you not only have far more teams today but also far more games on tv today, which has drastically increased the number of commentators you need to cover all games. There is also a whole lot more content everyone is bombarded with on a daily basis. Just like media has shifted over to deal with shorter attention-spans. Wondering whether that was caused by them or is merely a reaction to an outside change is a chicken / egg problem.

Quite frankly, commentators are either good at their job or they are not. Which is largely a subjective opinion, as some peopel will love what other people hate. This isn't connected to the time they did their job. There have been good commentators in the past, and there have been bad ones. Just like there are good ones and bad ones today. Some talk too much, some talk too much about stuff that has nothing to do with the game, or even miss out on what happens in the game because they blabber to much with the rest of the crew, but that doesn't mean that they all do, that they fail at their job, or that they somehow failed upwards and have no idea what they are doing.

If I don't like much of modern music, I could assume that we just have talentless hacks in music today, or I could consider that they aren't talentless at all, they just go for what garners the most interest, and that doesn't happen to match my taste. The odds of that are quite a bit higher than humanity somehow having a crisis in terms of musical talent.

If I go back 30 years, I know that I constantly complained about the commentators being obnoxious. I also did that ten years later, and another ten years later, and today. Even though the reasons shifted. Just because I don't like some commentators because they seem to love to hear themselves talk and put themselves above the game, doesn't mean I need to shift reality by pretending that those who I complained about in the past were so much better, just because they didn't do what I complain about now. That sort of criticsm is very much like the longing some people have to make things go back to the way they were in a past that only exists in their minds. They remember the good things fondly (if they are even true to begin with, and not just a fake memory) and completely ignore all the bad stuff. Everyone remembers the famous songs from his youth, no one remembers the 90% rubbish that came out at the same time.

 

[Drivesaitl]

That sounds like revisionist history to me, with a whole lot of assumptions on top of it.

There is zero reason to assume that those who got the job back then loved the game any more than those who do it today. There is also no reason to assume that they somehow knew better what the audience wanted, which isn't even taking into account that what the majority of people like changes over time. What may have been "right" for older audiences may not be right one or two decades later.

Your argument basically amounts to "these old guys did it in a way I liked, and the new guys don't", and then you proceed to project your subjective opinion onto the audience as a whole, even though you have nothing to support that theory with. If they adjust their style to cater to what the majority of people want today, and you just happen to not be among that group, then they are doing exactly what you are praising the old guys for. But you ignore it, because their style goes against what you want.

It's also not true that they somehow "developed their skills" back then yet don't do the exact same thing today. Or that they somehow fall into the job. You get some former players in a supporting role, but play-by-play is almost entirely done by people who have done that job for ages and went through all the steps you always had to go through to reach the "top job" as television play-by-play commentator.

One key difference is that you not only have far more teams today but also far more games on tv today, which has drastically increased the number of commentators you need to cover all games. There is also a whole lot more content everyone is bombarded with on a daily basis. Just like media has shifted over to deal with shorter attention-spans. Wondering whether that was caused by them or is merely a reaction to an outside change is a chicken / egg problem.

Quite frankly, commentators are either good at their job or they are not. Which is largely a subjective opinion, as some peopel will love what other people hate. This isn't connected to the time they did their job. There have been good commentators in the past, and there have been bad ones. Just like there are good ones and bad ones today. Some talk too much, some talk too much about stuff that has nothing to do with the game, or even miss out on what happens in the game because they blabber to much with the rest of the crew, but that doesn't mean that they all do, that they fail at their job, or that they somehow failed upwards and have no idea what they are doing.

If I don't like much of modern music, I could assume that we just have talentless hacks in music today, or I could consider that they aren't talentless at all, they just go for what garners the most interest, and that doesn't happen to match my taste. The odds of that are quite a bit higher than humanity somehow having a crisis in terms of musical talent.

If I go back 30 years, I know that I constantly complained about the commentators being obnoxious. I also did that ten years later, and another ten years later, and today. Even though the reasons shifted. Just because I don't like some commentators because they seem to love to hear themselves talk and put themselves above the game, doesn't mean I need to shift reality by pretending that those who I complained about in the past were so much better, just because they didn't do what I complain about now. That sort of criticsm is very much like the longing some people have to make things go back to the way they were in a past that only exists in their minds. They remember the good things fondly (if they are even true to begin with, and not just a fake memory) and completely ignore all the bad stuff. Everyone remembers the famous songs from his youth, no one remembers the 90% rubbish that came out at the same time.

Theres zero reason other than to have read the biographies and accounts of such famous broadcasters as Foster Hewitt that substantiate everything I've stated in that post. No revision, no assumption, no subjectivity maybe inform yourself on the history of NHL broadcasting and how hard it used to be to get to the pantheon of HNIC before replying.

Very few would disagree with the notion that Hewitt, Dirk Irwin Danny Gallivan, Bob Cole, Dan Kelly, Howie Meeker were the best. They're on pretty much everybodies list. Back then Hockey, and HNIC in particular it was not just a program, it was the flagship of the whole TV media. People bought TV's back then implicitely so that they could enjoy HNIC. it was the top broadcast in the nation that everybody was tuned into. So that everybody from advertisers to directors producers and Network was watching intently to make sure they had the premium best possible crew doing games. Again inform yourself of how integral NHIC was back then and what a huge commodity it was. It wasn't like now where tons of broadcasters call games and watered down product.

Even in more modern times few would argue that on the US side Mike Emrick was a cut above all the rest. The best US hockey broadcaster I'd ever heard and I noticed how good he was in comparison to peers everytime. More recently Mickey Redmond probably the best commentator and is it subjective if polls and publications have him as #1 color commentator? He's got a wealth of knowledge from the well spring, hockey mecca as it were. He's the last in that line.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Theres zero reason other than to have read the biographies and accounts of such famous broadcasters as Foster Hewitt that substantiate everything I've stated in that post. No revision, no assumption, no subjectivity maybe inform yourself on the history of NHL broadcasting and how hard it used to be to get to the pantheon of HNIC before replying.

Very few would disagree with the notion that Hewitt, Dirk Irwin Danny Gallivan, Bob Cole, Dan Kelly, Howie Meeker were the best. They're on pretty much everybodies list. Back then Hockey, and HNIC in particular it was not just a program, it was the flagship of the whole TV media. People bought TV's back then implicitely so that they could enjoy HNIC. it was the top broadcast in the nation that everybody was tuned into. So that everybody from advertisers to directors producers and Network was watching intently to make sure they had the premium best possible crew doing games. Again inform yourself of how integral NHIC was back then and what a huge commodity it was. It wasn't like now where tons of broadcasters call games and watered down product.

Even in more modern times few would argue that on the US side Mike Emrick was a cut above all the rest. The best US hockey broadcaster I'd ever heard and I noticed how good he was in comparison to peers everytime. Today hardly anybody would argue Mickey Redmond is the best US hockey broadcaster but a guy that grew up with legends on the most legendary club and surroundings. I don't know its subjective either. Redmond came out on top in many polls and reader publications. he's the best in the business today.

 

[Zerotonine]

Ah so it's the old "I've decided it doesn't count" situation. Fair enough, good luck with that.

Funny cuz it seems the stu fans only seem to count the good games he plays. He played great his last game but he cost us 2 points vs Washington. And yes he has had alot more bad games then good ones

 

[CanadasTeam99]

They didn't call anything for Edmonton

 

[CanadasTeam99]

Rejean baby