Post-Game Talk: Tipped Off | Oilers lose series 3-1

[Fourier]

With advanced team systems any game played at a higher level is increasingly about increasing coefficients of those chances. About increasing probability of random events taking place around opponent goal. Players like Smyth understood this. By all means generate some chaos around opponent goal, create rebounds, loose pucks, open chances. Work for point shots, deflections, etc.

You can say that its about luck except the Oilers and Hawks could play several more games in this series and all approaches remaining the same the Hawks probably win because the hawks are doing more of the things that can increase that *luck* quotient. Which i don't buy is sole luck. The old addage is you make your luck, you make your breaks, and generating a ton of pt shots and practicing tipping those home is a good way to cheat code that.

I bet the Hawks spend hours and hours on tip and deflection drills and the Oilers don't . Is that luck?

The only guy who had any clean deflections was Highmore. The 24 year old with 2 NHL goals in his career. The rest were pretty much of the hit him and changed direction variety. But lets assume that point shots are the way you score in the NHL playoffs. Here are the 5 vs 5 numbers from this series...

Edmonton:
Nurse 7 shots 14 ICF
Russell 7 shots 8 ICF
Klefbom 7 shots 11 ICF
Benning 3 shots 13 ICF
Bear 2 shots 3 ICF
Jones 2 shots 4 ICF

Chicago:

Murphy 6 shots 10 ICF
Maata 4 shots 7 ICF
Keith 4 Shots 5 ICF
Koekkoek 3 shots 4 ICF
de Haan 3 shots 4ICF
Boqvist 5 shots 10ICF

Totals:
Edmonton 31 shots 53 ICF
Chicago 25 shots 40 ICF

Rebounds created:

Edmonton 3 Chicago 2

Now some of these may not have been point shots so if you like you could subtract off the shots classified as scoring chances which favored the Oiler 13 to 11 and the relative numbers still stand.

So it would seem that your narrative that somehow the Hawks recognized that point shots = goals in the playoffs may not be as obvious as you claim. If Maatta and Koekkoek scoring 3 goals on 7 shots is a strategy, then perhaps the Hawks have found a way to revolutionize the game.

I have said on several occasions that the Hawks did everything in their power to win this. They out worked the Oilers and that chokes me. But let's not invent a narrative that cannot be justified.

(All stats are from Natural Stats trick).

 

[Gordian Knot]

How many we kicked in? Watching Leafs-Jackets very high intensity games it wasn't even close that either side was kicking pucks into own goal.

 

[LaGu]

I actually thought I'd care more about this, but for me this entire thing, the series vs Chicago, ended up as just a footnote during my holidays. 75% of a season ending with a made up playoff format and playing in bubbles without audience. Whoever wins it will have a big asterisk next to the SC year.

The only bummer is that now we'll have to wait months again for some Oilers hockey.

 

[McShogun99]

If Larsson was healthy I think we would have taken games 3 and 4. I know a lot of people shit on him but he's our best and most physical shutdown D. Him being out forced Russell to the top pairing and Bear to play harder minutes. 3 of Chicago's 7 goals in games 3/4 went in off Russell and Bear.

 

[McJadeddog]

Nuge's career shooting percentage and ability does not befit somebody that was a #1 pick and that was chosen for offensive capabilitty. Um, yeah, I would expect a #1 pick alleged to have high scoring ability to be better than league average...jesus

But you literally just said "But he has legend Corsi numbers probably. not so great shot percentage numbers though". Sow which one is it? Do you expect him to have good shooting% or do you expect him to have "not so great" shooting %?

 

[McJadeddog]

I'm not sure how I could word this more clearly and still have people misinterpret what I'm stating. Again, more shots from the point result in goals in the playoffs, than is the case in the regular season. because in the playoffs teams increasingly, in tight coverage, look for different ways to grind out some goals.

I have not stated that most goals in playoffs are generated from the point. That was never my argument. Just that the proportion coming from the point increases in the playoffs.

hope this is clear

So you aren't providing any proof? I'm not trying to be a dick, I actually think its a legitimately interesting question. I understand you aren't saying that most goals are scored from the point, but rather a higher %. But again, there will be stats to back this up, or refute it.

 

[Drivesaitl]

So you aren't providing any proof? I'm not trying to be a dick, I actually think its a legitimately interesting question. I understand you aren't saying that most goals are scored from the point, but rather a higher %. But again, there will be stats to back this up, or refute it.

I've never once, the whole time, stated that I obtained this from statistics. Alternately, and you've mentioned it yourself, for decades it was conventional wisdom in the playoffs, in tight checking, to find different ways to score. Shooting from the point and attempting deflections a good way to do that. Coaches have told players to do that more, analysts from Howie Meeker on have advised doing it when nothing else is working. I'm a specific fan of Ronnie Low/Ryan Smyth type clubs that would equalize against better teams by maximizing chances of bagging "garbage goals" getting puck on net anyway possible, and banging for rebounds. Chaos works.

You cast that off as yesterday type news, thats its something that was a thing decades ago but no longer is as relevant. Yet heres the Blackhawks beating us and advancing because they scored 10 goals in a series on shots originating from the point.

In anycase its not like I'm going to dig deep to the exact kinds of stats I disparage, to utilize, those to support my argument that those stats aren't worth tabulating or looking at. heh.

Its a discussion. If people take objection to a few statements here or there being posed in declarative manner thats fair. I could word it better. But I'm not about to waste more of my time diving deep into the nether world of HDSC looking at stats I don't believe in in the first place.

Would anybody ask an atheist to read the bible to provide proof of their being a non believer?

 

[Drivesaitl]

The only guy who had any clean deflections was Highmore. The 24 year old with 2 NHL goals in his career. The rest were pretty much of the hit him and changed direction variety. But lets assume that point shots are the way you score in the NHL playoffs. Here are the 5 vs 5 numbers from this series...

Edmonton:
Nurse 7 shots 14 ICF
Russell 7 shots 8 ICF
Klefbom 7 shots 11 ICF
Benning 3 shots 13 ICF
Bear 2 shots 3 ICF
Jones 2 shots 4 ICF

Chicago:

Murphy 6 shots 10 ICF
Maata 4 shots 7 ICF
Keith 4 Shots 5 ICF
Koekkoek 3 shots 4 ICF
de Haan 3 shots 4ICF
Boqvist 5 shots 10ICF

Totals:
Edmonton 31 shots 53 ICF
Chicago 25 shots 40 ICF

Rebounds created:

Edmonton 3 Chicago 2

Now some of these may not have been point shots so if you like you could subtract off the shots classified as scoring chances which favored the Oiler 13 to 11 and the relative numbers still stand.

So it would seem that your narrative that somehow the Hawks recognized that point shots = goals in the playoffs may not be as obvious as you claim. If Maatta and Koekkoek scoring 3 goals on 7 shots is a strategy, then perhaps the Hawks have found a way to revolutionize the game.

I have said on several occasions that the Hawks did everything in their power to win this. They out worked the Oilers and that chokes me. But let's not invent a narrative that cannot be justified.

(All stats are from Natural Stats trick).

Occams Razor. The Hawks scored at least 10 of their goals originating from the point. The Oilers scored what, 2?

I mean I admire your tenacity on this, and the effort you took. but you have to realize I don't really believe the kind of tabulations or methodology, or inter observer reliability number counting that would even result in the above totals. Which look contrived to me.

Its not accurate that only the highmore chance was clean or stick deflected. But I'm not going to subject myself to the misery of reviewing every goal in the series to clarify that. Maybe if I'm real bored later. heh

Being honest here, because I no longer follow tertiary stats much at all, what is ICF? Because outside of select users of such stats nobody knows what such a term means, Its not common vernacular. I even googled it and got "inertial Confinement fusion" I'm sure thats not it..


Hey, I delved in advanced stats for years. I took good looks around at HDSC type stats. Took good looks at scatterplots. I dunno, I guess some people love that stuff. I really don't and I'll watch the games and develop positions or even opinions based on that. Not on mathematical models and attempts to pin the complex sport of hockey down to numbers.

hey, just as an aside, and its just for fun. But a couple decades ago I was in a forum where Physics professors were trying to mathematically quantify how various baseball pitches work. In formulas, observation, and what operations allow say a slider, curve, etc, to do what it does. Further conversation revolved around the difference between a fast shot, heavy shot, or a fast light shot and how or if there is much more to a shot than just velocity. The Physics profs are probably still arguing about that now. yet countless goalies have described similar velocity shots that either burn through their glove or that they hardly feel. When guys like Reggie Leach wound into a shot the goalies knew they'd be hurtin. The last paragraph only existing as food for thought that it is hard to explain a lot of things just on numbers and formulas.

 

[TB12]

The only guy who had any clean deflections was Highmore. The 24 year old with 2 NHL goals in his career. The rest were pretty much of the hit him and changed direction variety. But lets assume that point shots are the way you score in the NHL playoffs. Here are the 5 vs 5 numbers from this series...

Edmonton:
Nurse 7 shots 14 ICF
Russell 7 shots 8 ICF
Klefbom 7 shots 11 ICF
Benning 3 shots 13 ICF
Bear 2 shots 3 ICF
Jones 2 shots 4 ICF

Chicago:

Murphy 6 shots 10 ICF
Maata 4 shots 7 ICF
Keith 4 Shots 5 ICF
Koekkoek 3 shots 4 ICF
de Haan 3 shots 4ICF
Boqvist 5 shots 10ICF

Totals:
Edmonton 31 shots 53 ICF
Chicago 25 shots 40 ICF

Rebounds created:

Edmonton 3 Chicago 2

Now some of these may not have been point shots so if you like you could subtract off the shots classified as scoring chances which favored the Oiler 13 to 11 and the relative numbers still stand.

So it would seem that your narrative that somehow the Hawks recognized that point shots = goals in the playoffs may not be as obvious as you claim. If Maatta and Koekkoek scoring 3 goals on 7 shots is a strategy, then perhaps the Hawks have found a way to revolutionize the game.

I have said on several occasions that the Hawks did everything in their power to win this. They out worked the Oilers and that chokes me. But let's not invent a narrative that cannot be justified.

(All stats are from Natural Stats trick).

Thanks for compiling this.

 

[tardigrade81]

This is a W for everybody else. At least I take it that way.

I feel almost as good as if the Oilers won a game today..

In life its important to take pleasure from things.

Lol well said buddy.

 

[Fourier]

I've never once, the whole time, stated that I obtained this from statistics. Alternately, and you've mentioned it yourself, for decades it was conventional wisdom in the playoffs, in tight checking, to find different ways to score. Shooting from the point and attempting deflections a good way to do that. Coaches have told players to do that more, analysts from Howie Meeker on have advised doing it when nothing else is working.

You cast that off as yesterday type news, thats its something that was a thing decades ago but no longer is as relevant. Yet heres the Blackhawks beating us and advancing because they scored 10 goals in a series on shots originating from the point.

In anycase its not like I'm going to dig deep to the exact kinds of stats I disparage, to utilize, those to support my argument that those stats aren't worth tabulating or looking at. heh.

Its a discussion. If people take objection to a few statements here or there being posed in declarative manner thats fair. I could word it better. But I'm not about to waste more of my time diving deep into the nether world of HDSC looking at stats I don't believe in in the first place.

Would anybody ask an atheist to read the bible to provide proof of their being a non believer?

In answer to your bold...Because you make claims that are verifiable by stats or can be proven false by stats.. This is not using CF% to determine if player A is better than Player B. You came up with some narrative that Chicago realized that to score in the playoffs it is necessary to shoot a lot from they point because with tight checking you won't get a lot of shots in tight. Yet it turns out that the Oilers did indeed get a lot of shots from spots that are most likely to result in goals. Then you suggested that it was the case that these shots were not from the Oilers better players so they should be discounted. Again this is provably false. Then the shot from teh point narrative kicked in in full. And in fact the Oilers actually significantly out shot the Hawks from the back end which shots down the premise that this was some sort of brilliant strategy. The reason you don't want to look at stats is because these easily show your claims to be false.

But let's see wht you come up with when it comes to subjective assessments.

You stated:
Highmore- As good as any young forward player we have (not many)

This is a guy who is 24, undrafted and has played all of 49 NHL games with 8 points and yet you make such a claim as if you see things in his game that no one else has ever seen. Why because he tipped in two shots.

Connor Murphy--Already better than any defenseman we have.

This is the same Connor Murphy who is a 27 year old mostly bottom pairing defenseman or #4, whose high water mark offensively is 19 points.

This is what you got from watching these games. Why should anyone take your claims seriously when the ones that are objective are easily shown to be false and the subjective claims are so off the wall?

 

[TB12]

In answer to your bold...Because you make claims that are verifiable by stats or can be proven false by stats.. This is not using CF% to determine if player A is better than Player B. You came up with some narrative that Chicago realized that to score in the playoffs it is necessary to shoot a lot from they point because with tight checking you won't get a lot of shots in tight. Yet it turns out that the Oilers did indeed get a lot of shots from spots that are most likely to result in goals. Then you suggested that it was the case that these shots were not from the Oilers better players so they should be discounted. Again this is provably false. Then the shot from teh point narrative kicked in in full. And in fact the Oilers actually significantly out shot the Hawks from the back end which shots down the premise that this was some sort of brilliant strategy. The reason you don't want to look at stats is because these easily show your claims to be false.

But let's see wht you come up with when it comes to subjective assessments.

You stated:
Highmore- As good as any young forward player we have (not many)

This is a guy who is 24, undrafted and has played all of 49 NHL games with 8 points and yet you make such a claim as if you see things in his game that no one else has ever seen. Why because he tipped in two shots.

Connor Murphy--Already better than any defenseman we have.

This is the same Connor Murphy who is a 27 year old mostly bottom pairing defenseman or #4, whose high water mark offensively is 19 points.

This is what you got from watching these games. Why should anyone take your claims seriously when the ones that are objective are easily shown to be false and the subjective claims are so off the wall?

 

[McDNicks17]

Occams Razor. The Hawks scored at least 10 of their goals originating from the point. The Oilers scored what, 2?

I mean I admire your tenacity on this, and the effort you took. but you have to realize I don't really believe the kind of tabulations or methodology, or inter observer reliability number counting that would even result in the above totals. Which look contrived to me.

Its not accurate that only the highmore chance was clean or stick deflected. But I'm not going to subject myself to the misery of reviewing every goal in the series to clarify that. Maybe if I'm real bored later. heh

Being honest here, because I no longer follow tertiary stats much at all, what is ICF? Because outside of select users of such stats nobody knows what such a term means, Its not common vernacular. I even googled it and got "inertial Confinement fusion" I'm sure thats not it..


Hey, I delved in advanced stats for years. I took good looks around at HDSC type stats. Took good looks at scatterplots. I dunno, I guess some people love that stuff. I really don't and I'll watch the games and develop positions or even opinions based on that. Not on mathematical models and attempts to pin the complex sport of hockey down to numbers.

hey, just as an aside, and its just for fun. But a couple decades ago I was in a forum where Physics professors were trying to mathematically quantify how various baseball pitches work. In formulas, observation, and what operations allow say a slider, curve, etc, to do what it does. Further conversation revolved around the difference between a fast shot, heavy shot, or a fast light shot and how or if there is much more to a shot than just velocity. The Physics profs are probably still arguing about that now. yet countless goalies have described similar velocity shots that either burn through their glove or that they hardly feel. When guys like Reggie Leach wound into a shot the goalies knew they'd be hurtin. The last paragraph only existing as food for thought that it is hard to explain a lot of things just on numbers and formulas.

Weren't you upset about someone making a claim that you said they couldn't substantiate just the other day?

Seems a little ironic now.

 

[Drivesaitl]

In answer to your bold...Because you make claims that are verifiable by stats or can be proven false by stats.. This is not using CF% to determine if player A is better than Player B. You came up with some narrative that Chicago realized that to score in the playoffs it is necessary to shoot a lot from they point because with tight checking you won't get a lot of shots in tight. Yet it turns out that the Oilers did indeed get a lot of shots from spots that are most likely to result in goals. Then you suggested that it was the case that these shots were not from the Oilers better players so they should be discounted. Again this is provably false. Then the shot from teh point narrative kicked in in full. And in fact the Oilers actually significantly out shot the Hawks from the back end which shots down the premise that this was some sort of brilliant strategy. The reason you don't want to look at stats is because these easily show your claims to be false.

But let's see wht you come up with when it comes to subjective assessments.

You stated:
Highmore- As good as any young forward player we have (not many)

This is a guy who is 24, undrafted and has played all of 49 NHL games with 8 points and yet you make such a claim as if you see things in his game that no one else has ever seen. Why because he tipped in two shots.

Connor Murphy--Already better than any defenseman we have.

This is the same Connor Murphy who is a 27 year old mostly bottom pairing defenseman or #4, whose high water mark offensively is 19 points.

This is what you got from watching these games. Why should anyone take your claims seriously when the ones that are objective are easily shown to be false and the subjective claims are so off the wall?

Maybe I got carried away with highmore. But man, i'd like to have one young Oiler with the presence of mind to score a couple the way he did in the series, and really important goals as well. one of the deflections just being a beauty. I mean we got none of that from our supporting cast, or young players.

The above is not what I said about Connor Murphy.

But I also praised guys like Kubalik, and feel they are better players, and more consistent scorers all day than say guys like AA, or Ennis, or any of the lukewarm help the Oilers added. About the only players that were added this season that I have much interest in is Archibald, and maybe Haas.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Weren't you upset about someone making a claim that you said they couldn't substantiate just the other day?

Seems a little ironic now.

Someone, um, you, stated that "Draisaitl really is among the worst forwards defensively in the NHL"

for clarity. We know what kind of an attempt that was, by you, on the night the Oilers were eliminated.

Which I said was poor form because of what you were attempting. I mean thats the kind of stuff I expect to read on a Flames board or on the mains.

Other than pointing that out, I'm not biting. Knock yourself out.

 

[TheUltimateOiler]

Atleast we took a step forward this year.
Now we just gotta add a bit more

 

[Fourier]

Maybe I got carried away with highmore. But man, i'd like to have one young Oiler with the presence of mind to score a couple the way he did in the series, and really important goals as well. one of the deflections just being a beauty. I mean we got none of that from our supporting cast, or young players.

But I also praised guys like Kubalik, and feel they are better players, and more consistent scorers all day than say guys like AA, or Ennis, or any of the lukewarm help the Oilers added. About the only players that were added this season that I have much interest in is Archibald, and maybe Haas.

ps ftr, I believe what I stated was that rooks like Kubalik, Dach Highmore, are better than anything we have. I'll look back and see.

Kubalik looks like a player. But in reality he had one great game and then scored the winning goal. Aside from that he was almost invisible. he's also a rookie so lets see how things play out long term. Dach I actually agree with. He's a guy I would have been very happy to have had a shot at. But his game is more all round than as an offensive star. And even then he is more of a playmaker.

Chicago's main issue is their defense, or lack there of. Boqvist look like a guy who can put up numbers but without Keith they are in big big trouble. He's 37 so we will see how much more he has in the Tank. Maybe Mitchell helps out but as of right now that's an area of big concern.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Kubalik looks like a player. But in reality he had one great game and then scored the winning goal. Aside from that he was almost invisible. he's also a rookie so lets see how things play out long term. Dach I actually agree with. He's a guy I would have been very happy to have had a shot at. But his game is more all round than as an offensive star. And even then he is more of a playmaker.

Chicago's main issue is their defense, or lack there of. Boqvist look like a guy who can put up numbers but without Keith they are in big big trouble. He's 37 so we will see how much more he has in the Tank. Maybe Mitchell helps out but as of right now that's an area of big concern.

Yep. Agree with almost everything here. Except that Hawks are automatically in trouble on D. i don't know, i saw some promise, maybe not as much offensively, but obviously the eventual hole of losing Keith would be hard to fill. That said Duncan is looking like a lifer.

Dach is a pure stud. I'm objective enough on opponent clubs to say I love that guy, would love to have him. I honestly feel Kubalik has higher upside than AA or anything we recruited. What a find for the Hawks. Sure he's a rookie, but what a rookie season.

Going back to Highmore, and I've already conceded the point (thanks) still impresses me that the kid worked smart all over the ice, rose to the occasion, and got 2 G 1A 3pts in last 2gp on really bit minutes. I mean thats 15 minutes of total toi, combined, in those games. Yeah I know short sample, lightning strikes, all of that, but man, what a story. If the kid never does anything the rest of his hockey life he can tell grand kids he had a signature part in beating the Oilers in the Covid bubble cup playoffs.

Connor Murphy? Just for clarity I stated he "looked better than any oiler D" referring directly to the series. I didn't state anything about he was better. That said, some D take time, more time, and he was very composed for the most part. He's a first pick D and still looks to have some upside. That said I still have patience for Nurse, and all kinds of time for Bear. D take time.

In anycase know in advance that I appreciate your time, patience, and the exchange.

 

[McJadeddog]

I've never once, the whole time, stated that I obtained this from statistics. Alternately, and you've mentioned it yourself, for decades it was conventional wisdom in the playoffs, in tight checking, to find different ways to score. Shooting from the point and attempting deflections a good way to do that. Coaches have told players to do that more, analysts from Howie Meeker on have advised doing it when nothing else is working. I'm a specific fan of Ronnie Low/Ryan Smyth type clubs that would equalize against better teams by maximizing chances of bagging "garbage goals" getting puck on net anyway possible, and banging for rebounds. Chaos works.

You cast that off as yesterday type news, thats its something that was a thing decades ago but no longer is as relevant. Yet heres the Blackhawks beating us and advancing because they scored 10 goals in a series on shots originating from the point.

In anycase its not like I'm going to dig deep to the exact kinds of stats I disparage, to utilize, those to support my argument that those stats aren't worth tabulating or looking at. heh.

Its a discussion. If people take objection to a few statements here or there being posed in declarative manner thats fair. I could word it better. But I'm not about to waste more of my time diving deep into the nether world of HDSC looking at stats I don't believe in in the first place.

Would anybody ask an atheist to read the bible to provide proof of their being a non believer?

I'm an atheist and have read the bible, and large parts of the Quran, for precisely those reasons actually, lol. How can you argue against a point if you don't understand it was always my thinking.

I can't see how you can say "a higher % of goals are scored from the point in the playoffs", and then balk when people say "prove it". You don't see how that doesn't make sense? You are the Catholic in this case, claiming an effect (higher % of goals being scored in the playoffs from the point), but not providing any proof at all.

 

[McDNicks17]

Someone, um, you, stated that "Draisaitl really is among the worst forwards defensively in the NHL"

for clarity. We know what kind of an attempt that was, by you, on the night the Oilers were eliminated.

Which I said was poor form because of what you were attempting. I mean thats the kind of stuff I expect to read on a Flames board or on the mains.

Other than pointing that out, I'm not biting. Knock yourself out.

After being directly responsible for two game winning goals against in a four game series, is it really all that outlandish of a claim?

 

[Aerchon]

After being directly responsible for two game winning goals against in a four game series, is it really all that outlandish of a claim?

Generally speaking I, and many others, think McDavid is even worse defensively. So... it seems outlandish and rather bias. McDavid was getting called out publicly in this series. If your focus is Draisaitl there is something a bit strange there.

Both need to be waaaaaaaaaaaaay better. As does the whole team.

 

[Smartguy]

I find it hilarious that Stauffer has been dispatched by the team to damage control. He never used to be a team blow hard. I get that they improved but the fan base if frustrated. Next camp all you will read from Stauffer is how Mcdavid and the team is “back with a chip on their shoulder” and going to “fly out of the gate”. Just to be disappointed again

 

[SupremeTeam16]

I needed a few days away after that lol, as a fan this one was particularly devastating for how things worked out. We saw a team take some big strides this season and earn playoff spot only to get jobbed on the format and then not do enough in the short qualifier.

Off ice, I feel like this team has been fighting an uphill battle for decades, no doubt they've been an absolute failure at identifying and developing talent, so many times over the last two decades we've seen players come here and fall apart or guys walk or traded for peanuts only to become productive, useful players elsewhere. We are an undesirable market for many players, no recent success, not a popular city, and a fanatic market where every move you make is analyzed. Often times we are desperate and forced to over pay whatever depth scraps we can get. All of this adds up to us being in desperate positions, taking unnecessary risks and getting taken by bad deals or bad signings. The league picking your pockets of picks every now and then doesn't help either.

On ice there seems to be some weird dynamic at play where having top end guys removes accountability throughout the lineup, sometimes it almost seems like guys are playing like they believe what they do doesn't really matter because McDavid and Draisaitl are just so good they will be the difference makers. I know drafting and developing has been bad but it's absolutely ridiculous that other teams can find ways to get enough contributions throughout their lineups to find success but here no matter how much shuffling we do the result is always the same. The flip side of this is that McDavid and Draisaitl start feeling like the burden is completely on them, because if they aren't scoring we don't have a chance so they abandon a complete game in pursuit of constantly pressing their offensive advantage.

 

[McShogun99]

With the Oilers out and Calgary still in then the only logical next thing to do is play the Flames 50/50 until they're eliminated. Let's see some Oilers fans win those pots.

 

[Drivesaitl]

After being directly responsible for two game winning goals against in a four game series, is it really all that outlandish of a claim?

Yes. Are you done yet?