[News] The Edmonton Oilers win the draft lottery and will select 1st overall

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Eh, I think I just generally disagree with you on player evaluation.

Kessel isn't a problem because he's all offense, that's just who he is as a player, and that talent can make up for other shortcomings. You could say the same of Ovechkin. Same goes for Hall, who isn't as bad as some like to make him out to be. The central point is that trying to make all these guys into 100 foot players may be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole in a lot of cases. I don't think Nail Yakupov, no matter what he becomes, will ever be a defensively responsible player, but that doesn't mean he can't be extremely valuable.

Player development isn't trying to make everyone into Jonathan Toews; they're not all Jonathan Toews. It's about identifying their strengths and weaknesses and trying to make them better at what they're good at, not forcing them to be something they aren't.

I think teams are rapidly realizing that you can't win when you rely on one-dimensional players to be your go-to guys. You cite Ovechkin, but he's won nothing and has been continually criticized for not adapting to a full game in order to lead the team. I put Hall in the same category. I really think you discount the type of domino affect it can have on the rest of your team when the guys who are getting the most ice-time aren't earning it and are a liability to your team. I know you're big on stats, but stats doesn't account for the pervasive culture of losing and entitlement seeping through the organization all the way from the top.

I don't think everyone has to be Jonathan Toews, but I believe you NEED one (or Bergeron, or Kopitar) to be a champion. Maybe McDavid is that guy and can bring everyone in line, but relying on an 18 year old (EIGHTEEN YEARS OLD) to reel in entitled brats and veteran bottom sixers is exactly the problem with the team. Think about yourself at 18. Yeah the guy's a phenomenal hockey player, but he's still a kid. And while not everyone has to be Toews, EVERYONE has to be defensively responsible. It is absoultey not an accident that TO has gone nowhere but down with Kessel leading the charge. Washinton, Calgary once Iggy became one dimensional. Itjust doesnt work. And there's a reason championship teams are built on the backs of every single person pulling their weight all the time. If all you do is play 100 ft, you're not and you're teammates are hating you for it. Especially when they keep getting gifted those roles with no accountability, are making much more money than you, and are, by most accounts, brats.

And you can't in one breath say that the cap poses a problem for them, but then say that top 4 dmen are available. Sure they are, but not to Edmonton unless they are moving significant assets out to clear space. It's a very important factor.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'd like to personally apologize to KFF if he thought I was talking down to him, being a jerk, or somehow implying that I'm a better hockey fan.

Tried to be as respectful as possible but IMO the guy's posts identify him as a homer and I didn't want to have a conversation where we take it as read that the Oilers are inherently awful. I also tried to note that if you want to cheer for a team that way, that's totally legitimate. So there was no "talking down" to anyone. It's just not my way to talk about hockey. He may indeed be a great poster but I just didn't want to have that type of hockey conversation. The one we're having with MattyC, Tinordi, others, has been pretty good.
.

You are still doing it!
It is this stuff that I'm talking about.
He offers a different viewpoint from you - so you conclude he is a homer.
KFF is actually one of the more balanced posters on the site.

You must see that calling someone a homer is pretty insulting.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think teams are rapidly realizing that you can't win when you rely on one-dimensional players to be your go-to guys. You cite Ovechkin, but he's won nothing and has been continually criticized for not adapting to a full game in order to lead the team. I put Hall in the same category.

See, this is where we part company. I don't think Ovechkin is part of the problem in Washington. They've had pretty good teams, but have always had goaltending issues and blue line stability issues, and have never been consistently great as a result. People talk about playoff failures, but in a lot of cases, you can be a good team and still lose in the playoffs for a bunch of reasons, and suddenly problems that aren't really problems get overblown.

If the league is really moving towards having to have every guy be a 200 foot, complete player at the expense of other talents, then a lot of skill guys are going to start being undervalued. Smart GM's will adapt. I don't believe there's one way to win.

I don't think everyone has to be Jonathan Toews, but I believe you NEED one (or Bergeron, or Kopitar) to be a champion.

I don't think the Penguins have ever really had one. Jordan Staal? Maybe? They've been a good team post-Staal, too, though.

Maybe McDavid is that guy and can bring everyone in line, but relying on an 18 year old (EIGHTEEN YEARS OLD) to reel in entitled brats and veteran bottom sixers is exactly the problem with the team.

Hahaha yeah, no, that isn't going to work. What they need is the right damned coach, but they've never been able to choose well in that respect. Accountability is clearly important and I agree with a lot of what you're saying I just don't think you have to force square pegs into round, defensively sound holes to make it happen. That Larionov article was completely on point. Everyone on the team needs to have a role to play, and your role can totally legitimately be "speed and aggressive attack off the rush" just as much as it can be grinding the puck along the boards. The key, for me, is that everyone is pushing in the same direction and contributing even if they're not all contributing the same things.

And you can't in one breath say that the cap poses a problem for them, but then say that top 4 dmen are available. Sure they are, but not to Edmonton unless they are moving significant assets out to clear space. It's a very important factor.

Yep, I agree. This may take a year, to get Purcell and Nikitin off the books. But there are always ways to clear cap space in the interim, too.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

You are still doing it!
It is this stuff that I'm talking about.
He offers a different viewpoint from you - so you conclude he is a homer.
KFF is actually one of the more balanced posters on the site.

You must see that calling someone a homer is pretty insulting.

Meh, not really, some people are obviously homers. Half the colour guys in the league are, and while other teams hate it, their own fans like it. There are a lot of people on here who think the Flames can do no wrong and whoever the Flames are playing are basically the spawn of Satan, while the Oilers are awful full stop and nothing they could possibly do is praiseworthy. Can't get around homerism here, or on HFboards, or anywhere. It's how a lot of people enjoy their sport - we're the good guys, you're the bad guys. There's nothing wrong with that; it's fun. This is a sport, however you get enjoyment out of it is fine. That's really just a long explanation for why I don't particularly consider it an insult so much as a part of the sport (and all sports).

Anyway I don't think this is a productive discussion so I'd already edited my post to simply apologize and hopefully we can just talk about hockey rather than what you see as my shortcomings.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't think the Penguins have ever really had one. Jordan Staal? Maybe? They've been a good team post-Staal, too, though.

Dude, Crosby much? He's about as a complete player as you'll ever find.

And it's not an accident that Pitt won their cup with him, Malkin and Staal down the middle. All very good to potentially the best (Crosby) 2-way players. And sure they've been a good team, but we're talking about Championships. And as good as they've been, they've been written off the last few years. And the only one of their C's that shows any potentially to fit one of those roles is RNH. Draisatl may be able to fill a Staal-type role, but again we can't say that until it happens.

Centers in particular are more relied on for defensive responsibilities than ever before. You're much better to have a 60 pt two-way center as your #1 than a 100 pt center who doesn't dip below the face off dot in their own zone, or try but are completely lost.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

You think Crosby is that type of guy? I just think he's better at hockey than everyone else on the ice... same goes for Malkin. They're not particularly defensively responsible in their playing style, but control the game in other ways. Much like Erik Karlsson, imo. Could say the same for Claude Giroux (to a lesser degree) or Stamkos.

I would prefer the 100 point Ovechkin type to the 60 point Toews type, personally, but my point is that each contributes to winning in different ways and if you place too much value on one while undervaluing another, you're probably suffering an opportunity cost by passing up guys who can help you win in favour of lesser players. It just goes back to over-emphasis on tools, for me - if you're able to get results, the "how" is secondary for me.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You think Crosby is that type of guy? I just think he's better at hockey than everyone else on the ice... same goes for Malkin. They're not particularly defensively responsible in their playing style, but control the game in other ways. Much like Erik Karlsson, imo. Could say the same for Claude Giroux (to a lesser degree) or Stamkos.

I would prefer the 100 point Ovechkin type to the 60 point Toews type, personally, but my point is that each contributes to winning in different ways and if you place too much value on one while undervaluing another, you're probably suffering an opportunity cost by passing up guys who can help you win in favour of lesser players. It just goes back to over-emphasis on tools, for me - if you're able to get results, the "how" is secondary for me.

Crosby is very good defensively.

As for Ovechkin v. Toews, Mr. Toews can't hear you with his rings blocking his ears. 2 way guys turn it up in the POs and score when needed. One way guys might do that, but they can't turn up their defensive game because they don't know how.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You think Crosby is that type of guy? I just think he's better at hockey than everyone else on the ice... same goes for Malkin. They're not particularly defensively responsible in their playing style, but control the game in other ways. Much like Erik Karlsson, imo. Could say the same for Claude Giroux (to a lesser degree) or Stamkos.

I would prefer the 100 point Ovechkin type to the 60 point Toews type, personally, but my point is that each contributes to winning in different ways and if you place too much value on one while undervaluing another, you're probably suffering an opportunity cost by passing up guys who can help you win in favour of lesser players. It just goes back to over-emphasis on tools, for me - if you're able to get results, the "how" is secondary for me.

What?

Crosby is like a mix between Chris Draper and Mario Lemieux.

He's the most skilled grinder the league has ever seen.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That isn't remotely how I view Crosby's play without the puck.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

You don't even need a true shutdown defence to have success though, you just have to have guys back there that can make a good breakout pass to get the puck to the forwards. That's what Pittsburgh did extremely well and what the Oilers are terrible at. If they were able to acquire some good puck moving defencemen then they likely could score themselves out of a lot of trouble, but relying on Justin Schultz to be that guy is asking for failure

Yeah sure. Schultz sucks.

That doesn't mean the Oilers necessarily have to go out and overpay to get a Weber/Keith/Doughty type.

Those players probably aren't available no matter what the realistic offer is anyway.

Your Gonchar and your 21 year old Letangs are attainable and that's what the Oilers need to aim for at this point.

A guy like Yandle could be available for instance. Mact hasn't shown to be adroit at filling holes, but the options are out there.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Gonchar would be a terrible idea.

Yandle is an interesting idea, though I would think the Rangers will aggressively try to re-sign him given how much they paid for his services. That's a whole year away though.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You think Crosby is that type of guy? I just think he's better at hockey than everyone else on the ice... same goes for Malkin. They're not particularly defensively responsible in their playing style, but control the game in other ways. Much like Erik Karlsson, imo. Could say the same for Claude Giroux (to a lesser degree) or Stamkos.

I would prefer the 100 point Ovechkin type to the 60 point Toews type, personally, but my point is that each contributes to winning in different ways and if you place too much value on one while undervaluing another, you're probably suffering an opportunity cost by passing up guys who can help you win in favour of lesser players. It just goes back to over-emphasis on tools, for me - if you're able to get results, the "how" is secondary for me.

Except the tools you are putting emphasis on, I have clearly laid out to not necessarily correlate with results. And there is a huge opportunity cost by giving up defense for scoring.

If you think the fact that Toews gets 60-70 pts and Ovechkin gets 100 makes him a lesser player...well I'm just going to step away from this right now.

What Toews does contributes to winning, what Ovechkin (I don't want to rag on him too much because he's picked up his two-way play quite a bit, so lets say Kessel and Hall) does contributes to SCORING. And while scoring certainly helps you win, it is most definitely not the only factor and arguably not the most important. "Defense wins championships" is a cliche for a reason, because it's been repeated ad nauseum by players and coaches across every sport.

And I'm sorry but if you don't think Crosby is one of the best two-way players in the game you're watching something different than me.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Gonchar would be a terrible idea.

Yandle is an interesting idea, though I would think the Rangers will aggressively try to re-sign him given how much they paid for his services. That's a whole year away though.

I meant a Gonchar type, not Gonchar himself.

Rangers might want to keep Yandle. I think someone on that roster has to shake lose though. They need to resign Stepan, Hagelin, and Miller and they have zero space to do it.

Anyhow, Yandle is just an example of the types of D-men that will be available. It will be the kind that the Oilers will be able to pick up for picks and prospects rather than trading Hall or Eberle.

Trading Hall or Eberle won't get them a Pietroangelo, Subban, or a Karlsson.
If that's true than its better to keep those wingers rather than trade them for a D-man that isn't an individual difference maker.

As per the Yandle example, above average D-men can be acquired for much less.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Except the tools you are putting emphasis on, I have clearly laid out to not necessarily correlate with results. And there is a huge opportunity cost by giving up defense for scoring.

If you think the fact that Toews gets 60-70 pts and Ovechkin gets 100 makes him a lesser player...well I'm just going to step away from this right now.

What Toews does contributes to winning, what Ovechkin (I don't want to rag on him too much because he's picked up his two-way play quite a bit, so lets say Kessel and Hall) does contributes to SCORING. And while scoring certainly helps you win, it is most definitely not the only factor and arguably not the most important. "Defense wins championships" is a cliche for a reason, because it's been repeated ad nauseum by players and coaches across every sport.

And I'm sorry but if you don't think Crosby is one of the best two-way players in the game you're watching something different than me.

To be fair, Toews has had the opportunity to play with a much better supporting cast than Ovechkin. I still think Ovechkin is a better player and he has the individual hardware to prove it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Except the tools you are putting emphasis on, I have clearly laid out to not necessarily correlate with results.

Scoring goals helps you win hockey games. Preventing goals helps you win hockey games. Clearly, therefore, both tools correlate with results. I think you'd agree that a team made up exclusively of Ovechkin and Seguin clones beats a team made up exclusively of David Backeses (or substitute some other strong two way player who isn't elite). From there, it's just a matter of degrees.

If you think the fact that Toews gets 60-70 pts and Ovechkin gets 100 makes him a lesser player...well I'm just going to step away from this right now.

Didn't say that. Said I'd probably take the 100 point scorer who doesn't have the defensive acumen over the guy who does and scores 60, as I don't think that defensive acumen is likely to make up the difference in contribution and competent defensive players can be found more readily than elite top 5 scorers (though admittedly not 60 point defensive guys).

My point wasn't Ovechkin vs Toews, it was that if you overvalue one type of contribution to outscoring the other team, you will inevitably suffer opportunity costs. If the entire league trends this way, then a GM could build a very competitive team by signing Mathieu Perrault-types to cheaper deals. It's a bit off-topic but I've felt for a while now that a GM could really do well by abandoning the concept of line-by-line roles.. the idea that you have scoring line 1, scoring line 2, checking line and energy line puts unnecessary restrictions on the players you can use. Someone's going to figure out a way to have a third line of high-tempo skill guys who light up the bottom part of the other team's roster. If I were running the Blues or another team that has these high-end two way players at the top of my lineup I'd definitely have that sort of thing in mind - but this is a digression sort of.

And I'm sorry but if you don't think Crosby is one of the best two-way players in the game you're watching something different than me.

I have a feeling we're talking past each other... I think he's one of the best players, period, which leads to him and his team frequently having the puck and as a result, control over everything that's going on on the ice. It's not really a matter of defensive positioning, supporting breakouts or backchecking. That's my view on watching a lot of Crosby, particularly this year.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Scoring goals helps you win hockey games. Preventing goals helps you win hockey games. Clearly, therefore, both tools correlate with results. I think you'd agree that a team made up exclusively of Ovechkin and Seguin clones beats a team made up exclusively of David Backeses (or substitute some other strong two way player who isn't elite). From there, it's just a matter of degrees.

I agree that you need guys who put the puck in the net, no doubt. But you also need those guys to protect, because this isn't lacrosse where you have offense/defense that get deployed whenever the game moves from one end to the other. If you get caught in your own zone, or change on the backcheck, you're a liability and that can';t be the case on Championship teams.

Didn't say that. Said I'd probably take the 100 point scorer who doesn't have the defensive acumen over the guy who does and scores 60, as I don't think that defensive acumen is likely to make up the difference in contribution and competent defensive players can be found more readily than elite top 5 scorers (though admittedly not 60 point defensive guys).

You referred to the opportunity cost of having a "lesser" player vs a 100pt goal scorer. I disagree that it makes them a lesser player.

My point wasn't Ovechkin vs Toews, it was that if you overvalue one type of contribution to outscoring the other team, you will inevitably suffer opportunity costs. If the entire league trends this way, then a GM could build a very competitive team by signing Mathieu Perrault-types to cheaper deals. It's a bit off-topic but I've felt for a while now that a GM could really do well by abandoning the concept of line-by-line roles.. the idea that you have scoring line 1, scoring line 2, checking line and energy line puts unnecessary restrictions on the players you can use. Someone's going to figure out a way to have a third line of high-tempo skill guys who light up the bottom part of the other team's roster. If I were running the Blues or another team that has these high-end two way players at the top of my lineup I'd definitely have that sort of thing in mind - but this is a digression sort of.

This is exactly my point. You are contradicting yourself a lot by claiming that you take a one-dimensional player for scoring over an all-around player and then you don't want to have "role" lines. Well that's what you get when you delegate defensive responsibilities away from your offensive players. If you want to roll 4 lines, everyone needs to have a head for the defensive side of the puck.

I have a feeling we're talking past each other... I think he's one of the best players, period, which leads to him and his team frequently having the puck and as a result, control over everything that's going on on the ice. It's not really a matter of defensive positioning, supporting breakouts or backchecking. That's my view on watching a lot of Crosby, particularly this year.

Lol you can't just say he's good defensively because "he's the best". Why is he the best? Because he does all those things you mentioned. Why does he have the puck? Because he backchecks and earns takeaways. Because he defends well and thus has less Dzone time vs Ozone time. You can't just look at possession numbers and conclude that because he has those numbers, he is good. He has those numbers BECAUSE he is good. BECAUSE he does the little things you mentioned at an elite level along with everything else. Possession is not a single skill, it is a combination of a variety of factors. That's why he's the best. And it also why there is an arguments to be made that Toews is right along side him, very close, or potentially even better.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I agree that you need guys who put the puck in the net, no doubt. But you also need those guys to protect, because this isn't lacrosse where you have offense/defense that get deployed whenever the game moves from one end to the other. If you get caught in your own zone, or change on the backcheck, you're a liability and that can';t be the case on Championship teams.

See, again, I want to emphasize why I disagree with this assumption: if you can consistently outscore the other guys when you're on the ice, I'm not much fussed if you're doing so by being defensively responsible or by being offensively talented. If, as a pure offensive talent, you can push the goals-for-vs-goals-against delta more than a two-way forward who costs the same, I will take you over said two-way forward. Figuring out who actually does that is easier said than done, but in the abstract I think that's a sound principle. Tools are only as good as the results you get from them.

you referred to the opportunity cost of having a "lesser" player vs a 100pt goal scorer. I disagree that it makes them a lesser player.

I think you misunderstood my intent - a pure offensive player can, in some circumstances, be a better overall player than a guy who is defensively responsible and therefore more valuable. Surely you would agree with that.

This is exactly my point. You are contradicting yourself a lot by claiming that you take a one-dimensional player for scoring over an all-around player and then you don't want to have "role" lines. Well that's what you get when you delegate defensive responsibilities away from your offensive players. If you want to roll 4 lines, everyone needs to have a head for the defensive side of the puck.

I don't think I am contradicting myself, and it's not so much about rolling four lines. It's about pre-set roles. If you have offensive guys who aren't top six quality, they tend to get bumped out of the league because they can't play the "style" generally thought to be associated with the bottom six. That's what I'm challenging and suggesting there are opportunities to pick up guys who can help you outscore the other team in other ways than your traditional bottom six contributor, and probably do so for less money.

Lol you can't just say he's good defensively because "he's the best". Why is he the best? Because he does all those things you mentioned. Why does he have the puck? Because he backchecks and earns takeaways.

I don't think this is the case, though. That is, I don't think it's because of backchecking or take-aways. If you look at Malkin, for example, he generally is near the top of the NHL in giveaways, because he's a creative player who frequently tries creative things, which often results in said giveaways. In other words, you can be good at preventing goals by keeping the other team on their heels and having the puck in their end the majority of the time, and that is what I think these guys do. But those aren't the qualities people generally mean when they talk about "two way" players.

You can't just look at possession numbers and conclude that because he has those numbers, he is good. He has those numbers BECAUSE he is good.

I didn't mention possession, and I don't disagree with this. It's a tautology of sorts. Stats are a descriptor, of course they can't make a guy good at hockey. They don't "do" anything, merely describe events on the ice.

And it also why there is an arguments to be made that Toews is right along side him, very close, or potentially even better.

Completely disagree with this.

[Weitz]

Quick question: Does the lottery affect the other rounds, or do the oilers pick 3rd in the other rounds?

[Coach]

Corsi, I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.

This is about Edmonton and what they are doing. Hall has hit 80 pts once. And those extra 10-20 points are just not going to make up his gaffs. I think I could name (and believe I have before) 50 players I would take on my team before Taylor Hall. And it's not just because of on-ice play (which I think is another big point you're missing from my arguments). Selfish players are detrimental to your entire team dynamic. Psychology pklays a large factor in hockey and all sports. If you're going to tell me that if you worked with a young kid (under 25) who makes twice-10 times as much as you, and they didn't pull their weight in important parts of the job, but then got all the credit when they present their flashy presentation, even though it's just the surface result of a bunch of hard work from all team members and that it would affect your daily attitude towards them and the team/company overall, I'm going to call you a liar.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Completely disagree with this.

Captains his team to two cups, while earning a playoff MVP and being the youngest captain to ever win? Guaranteed Crosby would trade every Art Ross for a cup all day every day. Some people would consider that better (including Crosby, who notably asked Toews if he was OK with Crosby captaining the Olympic team, given Toews' compared track record of TEAM success).

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Corsi, I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.

Yes, I think so, but good discussion nonetheless.

Captains his team to two cups, while earning a playoff MVP and being the youngest captain to ever win? Guaranteed Crosby would trade every Art Ross for a cup all day every day. Some people would consider that better (including Crosby, who notably asked Toews if he was OK with Crosby captaining the Olympic team, given Toews' compared track record of TEAM success).

Cups don't affect my analysis of a player at all, regardless of what players would or wouldn't trade for them. Playoff MVP's do, but only to the extent they actually reflect quality of play in the postseason. Toews has had some good and some poor years in that regard. Obviously, though, an elite center in the league, I don't mean to imply that I think he's anything less. Just nowhere near Crosby's level.