And
@guymez
I honestly think you guys are saying nearly the same thing.
You would both agree that when McDrai didn't score, we didn't win.
Was that because of a lack of depth scoring? From the box scores it looks like the answer was "depends on the night". The fact of the matter is that we got more offense from our depth than we expected, because any reasonable person would not have been expecting much. And maybe that's what's causing the argument...
@CupofOil is happy with that contribution, it was certainly much improved vs regular season... but
@guymez recognizes it still wasn't enough. Both can be true.
From where I stand, these things are true:
- Our top end offensive talent did not dominate and win that series
- Our ~sophomore starting goaltender was narrowly out-dueled by a playoff experienced Vezina winner
- Our team defense was narrowly out-dueled by one of the NHL's best defensive teams
To me,
- One of those things is surprisingly disappointing given the investment & prioritization of our team structure
- One of those things is completely predictable given the investment & prioritization of our team structure
- And the last of those things is also entirely predictable even if it was closer than expected
In the end, Florida's top-end talent sawed off our top end talent. Florida's depth on offense narrowly edged ours. And Florida's goaltending and defense narrowly edged ours. It really could have gone either way.
Look at you...showing off your arbitration skills and fostering agreement.
I appreciate the post and I think that you are right on point.
In terms of the goaltending its very appropriate to look at it from the perspective of what each team invested in the position. When you do that then the fact that it was as close as it was between the 2 teams is really quite remarkable.
On your point about the top end talent...absolutely agree. Especially if you look at it through the same lens as the goaltending.
Their top end talent out performed this teams top end talent but what skews that a little (in favour of the Oilers) are games 4 and 6.
Game 4 was essentially over at the start of the 2nd period and if you are the Panthers (being up 3-0 in the series) there is aboslutely no point in wasting energy to recover that game. The Oilers on the other hand can pad some stats with that game which is exactly what they did.
Same can be said for game 6 which had 2 empty net goals.
That is another reason why I was much more interested in the losses and how they played out.
What went wrong in all of those games? Was it only the Oilers goaltending?
The answer is obviously no.
Scoring 0.67 goals per game in those losses was clearly a major factor in terms of why they lost the series.
Especially when you take into account that they (Skinner and the team defence) only gave up 1.67 goals per game in those losses. This high powered offence only needed to avergae 2 goals per game to overcome what they gave up.
The Oilers cap heavy top end offensive players (essentially the identity of this team) generated almost no offence and the secondary scoring was no where to be found.
So that speaks to the "depends on the night" phrasing in your post. I think that the losses are more relevant than the games where the oilers had an opportunity to run up the score.
I think what makes this stand out in my mind more than anything else was that offence was a primary element in the identity of this team.
Offense was this teams advantage going into the series...or so we thought.
So to see Florida out perform the Oilers in terms of clutch offense was completely unexpected IMO.
So for that reason I tend to lean more heavily on that playing a bigger role in why this team lost the SC.
So I appreciate your phrasing....
"Surprisingly disappointing" is a very good way to frame that.