Edmonton "No Class" Oilers
ri...@ucla-cs.uucp
I'm sure many people will call tonight's Oiler 11-2 victory over the
Black Hawks an awesome display of firepower. I call it a classless
act. (oh oh, it is gonna get warm around here) With a 3 or 4 goal
lead you might expect a team to try protecting it. Not the Oilers, they
aren't content to beat a team - they have to humiliate them. What this
does is make the league look bad, and give other teams a reason to gun
for them. To keep pressing as hard as possible with a 10 goal lead isn't
good hockey, it is a sign of, well, immaturity. Who knows, maybe Chicago
will get mad now.
ps - I feel *MUCH* better now!
--
Rick Gillespie
rick@ucla-cs
...!{cepu|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!rick
"She turned me into a newt! . . . I got better."
l...@ucla-cs.uucp
><<< yum yum >>>
>I'm sure many people will call tonight's Oiler 11-2 victory over the
>Black Hawks an awesome display of firepower. I call it a classless
>act. (oh oh, it is gonna get warm around here)
Certainly, I call the Oilers offense awesome, or even
ultimate, but you have to give credits to the Hawks defense too. Without
its help, guy like Lindstrom (I have him in the pool) would not have
got his first point in the playoffs.
> With a 3 or 4 goal lead you might expect a team to try protecting it.
I see, this is what you expect a team to do with a 3 or
4 goal lead, especially the teams involved are the Oilers and the Hawks.
Come on, you have been watching hockey for your entire life.
I can't believe you make such a statement. This is even more nonsense
than all the things you said about the Islanders.
> Not the Oilers, they
>aren't content to beat a team - they have to humiliate them. What this
>does is make the league look bad, and give other teams a reason to gun
>for them. To keep pressing as hard as possible with a 10 goal lead isn't
>good hockey, it is a sign of, well, immaturity. Who knows, maybe Chicago
>will get mad now.
Well, this may be the only thing I agree with you. In the last
ten minutes of the game, they still have the regulars rushing the Chicago
zone. This is what amazed me. In all other sports, a coach will simply clear
his bench in such a blowout. In football, you don't use the two-minute
offense when your team is ahead by nine touchdowns. In basketball,
you don't call time-out to stop the clock when you are ahead by 40 points.
This is just some little respect to your opponent, not to make them mad
because the series is not just one-game. If their opponent is some other
powerhouses, I am sure the Oilers would be in trouble (they may even get
eliminated.) But since it's the Hawks, I guess it's OK!
However, your article also sounds like sour grapes because your
Islanders can never humiliate an opponent like that. Only the AWESOME
Oiler offense, as I said before, can reach such a pinnacle.
--
Eddy Lor
...!ucbvax!ucla-cs!lor
l...@ucla-locus.arpa
Chris Stassen
>
>I'm sure many people will call tonight's Oiler 11-2 victory over the
>Black Hawks an awesome display of firepower. I call it a classless
>act.
I call it an awesome display of defensive ineptitude on the
part of the 'Hawks. At least four of those goals should not have
been allowed.
> (oh oh, it is gonna get warm around here) With a 3 or 4 goal
>lead you might expect a team to try protecting it. Not the Oilers, they
>aren't content to beat a team - they have to humiliate them.
I would call this a very good strategy. If you can blow away
their confidence in the first game, you'll probably have them shaken
enough to have an easy sweep. If you can do it, do it - and Edmonton
is one of the few teams that could score 11 goals in the playoffs.
> What this
>does is make the league look bad, and give other teams a reason to gun
>for them.
Does not parse. How does this make the league look bad? I think
they made the 'Hawks look bad, but not without some help from the 'Hawks.
"Gun for them?" Huh? Are you saying that this will cause other teams to
try harder to beat Edmonton (they're not trying now?). Or do you mean
"rough them up?" I don't think that will help much, either, since
Edmonton proved last year that they could beat the Islanders at their
own game.
> To keep pressing as hard as possible with a 10 goal lead isn't
>good hockey, it is a sign of, well, immaturity. Who knows, maybe Chicago
>will get mad now.
And then again, maybe Chicago will be demoralized enough to go
on to lose the next three in a row.
>ps - I feel *MUCH* better now!
So does Edmonton, unlike Chicago.
-- Chris
p.s. What happened to the Flyers last night? I thought Edmonton
was the team that was supposed to look bad after the "vacation."
ri...@ucla-cs.uucp
> Certainly, I call the Oilers offense awesome, or even
>ultimate, but you have to give credits to the Hawks defense too. Without
>its help, guy like Lindstrom (I have him in the pool) would not have
>got his first point in the playoffs.
Granted the Hawk defence was pretty awful, and the goalies little more
than sieves, but that does not excuse the fact that the Oilers kept
gunning for more goals. Plus, let's take Coffey and Lowe away from the
Oilers (equivalent to the Hawks losing Wilson and Brown) and see how well
the Oilers do.
> I see, this is what you expect a team to do with a 3 or
>4 goal lead, especially the teams involved are the Oilers and the Hawks.
>Come on, you have been watching hockey for your entire life.
>I can't believe you make such a statement.
That's right, Eddy, I have been watching hockey all my life - I think
that makes me a little more of an expert than you! With a big lead (and
3 goals IS a big lead) you don't keep rubbing it in. You drop off and
check the other team, you DON'T keep rushing at the net.
> However, your article also sounds like sour grapes because your
>Islanders can never humiliate an opponent like that. Only the AWESOME
>Oiler offense, as I said before, can reach such a pinnacle.
Give me a break! There have been high scoring teams before - it has been
demonstrated that the Esposito-Orr Bruins of the early '70s was a more
dominating offensive team than today's Oilers because the Bruins were
scoring almost 400 goals back when teams still knew how to play defence.
And, yes, I didn't like the Bruins either.
Murray Campbell
> Black Hawks an awesome display of firepower. I call it a classless
> lead you might expect a team to try protecting it. Not the Oilers, they
> does is make the league look bad, and give other teams a reason to gun
> good hockey, it is a sign of, well, immaturity. Who knows, maybe Chicago
> will get mad now.
>
> rick@ucla-cs
Well Rick has now revealed to all of us the *true* *object* of
hockey. Not winning (how crude!). And certainly not entertaining
the fans (who needs 'em anyway). No, the object of the game is
to avoid hurting the opponent's feelings. See how simple it is.
I imagine Rick would like to seeing the goal scorers consoling
the goalie. "Don't feel bad, Gump. It was all luck. You had
brilliantly covered my intended shot by falling to the ice,
but, darn my luck, it went into the top of the net. Can I buy
you a beer after the game?"
Murray Campbell (msc@cmu-cs-k)
Ken Hruday
><<< yum yum >>>
>
>I'm sure many people will call tonight's Oiler 11-2 victory over the
>Black Hawks an awesome display of firepower. I call it a classless
>act. (oh oh, it is gonna get warm around here) With a 3 or 4 goal
>lead you might expect a team to try protecting it. Not the Oilers, they
>aren't content to beat a team - they have to humiliate them. What this
>does is make the league look bad, and give other teams a reason to gun
>for them. To keep pressing as hard as possible with a 10 goal lead isn't
>good hockey, it is a sign of, well, immaturity. Who knows, maybe Chicago
>will get mad now.
>
Here is an article in a similar vein ...
I agree with Rick Gillespie whole heartedly - but he doesn't go
far enough. As a whole there has been a definite lack of class
shown by nearly all teams in the NHL. Take the New York Islanders
for instance, this team has shown the least class of any on
record.
Consider their so-called "drive for five". This team had already won
the coveted Stanley Cup 4 years in sucession but their greed caused
them to try for it again despite the fact that most of their players
were past their prime.
Indeed, even today - a year later - the superannuated veterans of this
team are still hanging on until they're asked to retire i.e. Trottier.
There is nothing sadder than watching an old Stanley Cup champion - who
has accomplished much in his prime - try to keep up with younger players.
If Trottier had any class he would retire before he's asked to and
give a younger player a chance. I admit that the Islanders club should
be grateful to it's players for their past achievments but these veterans
shouldn't view the club as a retirement home for old hockey players.
Rick has definitely found a flaw in the character of some of the teams
in the NHL, but there must be some way to stem a team's desire to do
the best they can. Perhaps the civilized approach would be to decide
the Cup by a coin toss. This approach would allow all teams an equal
chance at the Cup and it would save teams such as the Black Hawks
(or the Islanders) from humiliation. This approach would certainly
show a lot of class since it eliminates all the arbitrary calls made
by the referees (after all what do referees know anyway?), and it
prevents humilition at the hands of barbaric, ruthless teams such as
the Oilers.
Rick, I can't believe you're serious.
Ken Hruday
Robert Lake
crous as 52...@ucla-cs.ARPA. But, just so I can educate Rick a bit, I will
anyway. I can't fault the Oilers at all for wanting to humiliate the Black
Hawks. Afterall, this is professional sport and the Black Hawks are after
the same trophy the Oilers are. If such a loss can cause the Black Hawks
to become demoralized and start questioning their chances in the series,
then I think this is total justification for the Oilers actions. Besides,
I don't care if it is the Oilers or any other team, I think the fans deserve
to see both teams trying as hard as they can for an entire 60 minutes, rather
than having one team just sit on their lead. With myself, I'd much rather
watch a blow out than see a team protect a lead. It makes me appreciate much
more the skills of the better team. As for Chicago getting mad - they might,
but it won't affect the outcome of the series.
Paul Shindman
>
>That's right, Eddy, I have been watching hockey all my life - I think
>that makes me a little more of an expert than you! With a big lead (and
>3 goals IS a big lead) you don't keep rubbing it in. You drop off and
>check the other team, you DON'T keep rushing at the net.
Well Rick, I've been *playing* hockey for the last 20 years or so, and
you are WRONG. With a big lead and lots of time left, the biggest problem
is making sure you do *not* drop off. Ever see a baseball team stop
hitting because they were leading by 10 runs in the 9th??? Also, football is
a totally different type of game, where you can slow down the execution
of your plays in the last *few minutes* only.
Tom Watt had (and has again) that problem with the U of T Blues hockey
squad. The Blues are in a division with several weak teams, and Watt has
a problem in making sure the team continues to execute plays. The scores
are ridiculous (16-0 range) but the team stays coherent and is ready for
the next game against better opposition.
The only time I would expect a hockey team to back off would be in the
absolute final game of the season. Otherwise, you develop bad habits
that can carry on into the next game. Hockey is very competative, and if
you want to win you have to carry the competative frame of mind with you
through each game.
Oilers over the Hawks in 4
Oilers over the Flyers in 6
--
-----------------
Paul Shindman, U of T Computing Services, Toronto (416) 978-6878
USENET: {ihnp4|decvax}!utcs!shindman
BITNET: paulie at utoronto IP SHARP MAIL: uoft
Dick Foster
Is this guy for real?? There are so many ways to repond...
1. The Oilers game is based on execution at high speed. Towards the end of
the regular (i.e. exhibition ) season, the Oilers really had nothing to play
for, and their playmaking fell off quite drastically. I think that now
they're back on track, they are a little afraid of lapses.
2. Chicago was playing terribly in the 11 - 2 game. The goaltending was
particularly bad. The Oilers actually did seem to let up quite a bit, but
it seemed anything they directed towards the net went in. The last four
goals were scored against Warren Skoragainstme, in one of the worst
goaltending displays I've ever seen.
3. One problem that the Oilers have had before in playoffs has been
protecting leads. Against L.A. in 1982 they were leading 5 - 0 in the
third game of the preliminary round ( with the teams tied 1 - 1 in games).
The (admittedly immature) Oilers were mocking the L.A. powerplay from
their bench. One of the Oilers received a 5 minute major penalty, and the
roof caved in. As a result, L.A. advanced, the Oilers had an early
exit from the playoffs. As a further result, a second rate Vancouver team
made it to the Stanley Cup final (the Norris division was weak as usual,
and the Oilers were the only real contender in the Smythe).
It's interesting to speculate that if the Oilers had advanced to the final,
the "drive-for-five" may have possibly been stopped at four or possibly
(although unlikely) even three. (i.e. the Oilers gain playoff maturity one
year earlier).
At any rate , the Oilers were determined not to let the same thing happen
again, and yet ...
4. Last year, against Calgary (Oilers strongest opponent in the playoffs, as
it turned out), the Oilers blew a 4 - 0 lead in the second game after
destroying Calgary in the 1st. The series went to 7 before the Oilers could
eliminate the Flames.
5. I guess that's exactly what the Black Hawks did against the North Stars
in one game of the Norris division final - protect their 5 - 1 lead.
(Minnesota won 6 - 5 in overtime).
Dick Foster
alberta!myrias!ref
Robert Lake
> ... Plus, let's take Coffey and Lowe away from the
> Oilers (equivalent to the Hawks losing Wilson and Brown) and see how well
> the Oilers do.
Let's remember that team defence requires the cooperation of ALL 5 skaters
on the ice at any time. Losing Wilson and Brown is not an excuse for the
bloodbath Chicago encountered.
> That's right, Eddy, I have been watching hockey all my life - I think
> that makes me a little more of an expert than you!
Funny, for all this "expertise" you possess over Eddy, Rick, I find Eddy's
remarks to be much more objective and informed than the biased and bizarre
comments you have been making.
> ... With a big lead (and
> 3 goals IS a big lead) you don't keep rubbing it in. You drop off and
> check the other team, you DON'T keep rushing at the net.
>
Where is it written in the rule book that you don't keep rubbing it in?
I bet if Chicago had been 3 goals up on the Oilers, they would have kept
pumping for more (after all, remember what happened to them at home the
last time they decided to sit on a 4-0 lead!).
> Give me a break! There have been high scoring teams before - it has been
> demonstrated that the Esposito-Orr Bruins of the early '70s was a more
> dominating offensive team than today's Oilers because the Bruins were
> scoring almost 400 goals back when teams still knew how to play defence.
> And, yes, I didn't like the Bruins either.
Oh, come on Rick! The style of hockey played back in the early '70s has
not changed much from what is being played today - if anything it has
improved. There were proportionately just as many weak teams back then
(remember the Islanders?) as there are now. If today's Oilers were play-
ing back then, they would at least equal if not better the record of the
Bruins.
Robert Lake (alberta!lake)
University of Alberta
P.S. Trottier scoring 100 points next year? OK, I'm game - what do you
want to bet? This is assuming he is playing for the Islanders and not
with Richard in some team in a Geritol division (:-)).
l...@ucla-cs.uucp
>>4 goal lead, especially the teams involved are the Oilers and the Hawks.
>>Come on, you have been watching hockey for your entire life.
>>I can't believe you make such a statement.
>
>That's right, Eddy, I have been watching hockey all my life - I think
>that makes me a little more of an expert than you! With a big lead (and
>3 goals IS a big lead) you don't keep rubbing it in. You drop off and
>check the other team, you DON'T keep rushing at the net.
How can an expert (self-claimed), by any means, forget the
Oilers and the Blacks Hawks JUST happen to be the victims of the
two greatest comebacks in Stanley Cup history? The Oilers blew
a 5-0 lead and lost 5-6 to the Kings in 1982. And just a few weeks
ago, the Hawks were leading the North Stars 4-0 but beaten 4-5 in
overtime. And now, you think a 3-goal lead IS safe? Remember,
we are talking about the Norris and Smythe teams, not YOUR NY Islanders!
Wayne Citrin
something. You guys defending the Oilers for running up the score to
11-2, haven't you heard of sportsmanship? (Sportsmanship, you say, what's
that?) Call me naive, but I think there's even a place for it in
professional sports. I've played in 10-0 hockey games (on the winning side,
not the losing side), and I didn't feel particularly good about it.
I have friends who have been on the losing side of scores like 19-0, and
they claim that it feels worse than losing, say, 7-0. I admit that in the
NHL, there's more to worry about than hurting your opponent's feelings,
but there are practical considerations: in a runaway game, there's
a greater likelihood of fights, and a greater likelihood of serious
injuries, as the losing team decides that playing to win is pointless and
decides to vent its frustration on the opposition. Also, the winning team
has to realize that the opponent may come back and humiliate it another
day.
In most professional sports, the threat of retribution is enough to
keep a player from showing up an opponent. Legitimate efforts to win
a game are respected, but when a game is already won, a baseball player,
for example, who shows up his opponent, can expect to have a pitch thrown
at his head, or to be spiked on the basepaths.
What constitutes running up a score? It's hard to say, but when it happens,
it's obvious.
Wayne Citrin
(ucbvax!citrin)
Mike Clifford
W.Citrin says: ...I admit that in the
> NHL, there's more to worry about than hurting your opponent's feelings,
> but there are practical considerations: in a runaway game, there's
> a greater likelihood of fights, and a greater likelihood of serious
> injuries, as the losing team decides that playing to win is pointless and
> decides to vent its frustration on the opposition. Also, the winning team
> has to realize that the opponent may come back and humiliate it another
> day.
>
> (ucbvax!citrin)
I disagree with your assertion that there is a greater likelihood of serious injuries because of a team venting its frustration upon the side that is
winning by a lopsided score and continuing to widen their lead instead of
letting up and holding the puck. I think the serious injuries occur more
often when a player is not going all out and that the mental letdown that
occurs can lead to less concentration and a higher vunerability to injury.
Mike Clifford
AT&T IS
Wayne Citrin
>
>I disagree with your assertion that there is a greater likelihood of serious
>injuries because of a team venting its frustration upon the side that is
>winning by a lopsided score and continuing to widen their lead instead of
>letting up and holding the puck. I think the serious injuries occur more
>often when a player is not going all out and that the mental letdown that
>occurs can lead to less concentration and a higher vunerability to injury.
>
>Mike Clifford
>AT&T IS
I don't know about that. My gut feeling, along with some personal experience,
is that the injuries come from the losing team's frustration. Of course,
neither of us have the statistics at hand to back up the assertion that
there are more injuries in this type of game, although it should be fairly
easy to verify or refute.
I look forward to hearing what other people on the net think about this.
Wayne Citrin
(ucbvax!citrin)
ri...@ucla-cs.uucp
>Let's remember that team defence requires the cooperation of ALL 5 skaters
>on the ice at any time. Losing Wilson and Brown is not an excuse for the
>bloodbath Chicago encountered.
Yes the defense is a combination of forwards and defensemen. My point was
that Chicago was missing a pair of important *players* who happened to be
a couple of their best defensemen. While we are on the topic, I may be
biased (yes, I am, really!) but Messier check on Brown that put him out
of action sure looked like boarding to me. OF COURSE there was no penalty.
My vote for nastiest player in the league (now that Clarke has retired goes
to Messier - the man is an animal (and a pretty good player when he wants
to be).
>> (... my claims of the '70s Bruins being more dominating ...)
>Oh, come on Rick! The style of hockey played back in the early '70s has
>not changed much from what is being played today - if anything it has
>improved.
Let's not get into the defense vs offense argument AGAIN! Yes it is
different, but I think less different than 3 or 4 years ago when so
many teams went to 19 year old players who couldn't check their hats.
> There were proportionately just as many weak teams back then
>(remember the Islanders?) as there are now. If today's Oilers were play-
>ing back then, they would at least equal if not better the record of the
>Bruins.
Wrong! The Oilers dominate the scoring now, yes, but not to the extent of
Bruins of the early '70s (I can't find the stats but they scored 390+ goals
when no one else was withing 70 or 80 of that - if anyone else topped 300
at all). Those were the days when goalies had averages in the 2's, not like
today when anything under 4 is good. But it is a fruitless exercise to play
(how would .... play in another era).
Robert Lake
> Yes the defense is a combination of forwards and defensemen. My point was
> that Chicago was missing a pair of important *players* who happened to be
> a couple of their best defensemen.
Yes, they were missing a couple of their best defensemen. But that shouldn't
account for a total of 11 goals being scored against them. Look at game 5
as well - both Wilson and Brown were back (although Wilson nearly needed
props to keep him standing) and the Oilers still managed 10 goals against
them.
> ... While we are on the topic, I may be
> biased (yes, I am, really!) but Messier check on Brown that put him out
> of action sure looked like boarding to me. OF COURSE there was no penalty.
I'm getting tired of you always whining how the officiating favors the
teams you dislike, and works against the teams you like. Grow up! If the
officiating is bad in the NHL, then it affects all teams. In every game I
have seen there has always been infractions on both sides missed by the
officials. But they are only human and (most of them) are doing the best
job they can.
> Wrong! The Oilers dominate the scoring now, yes, but not to the extent of
> Bruins of the early '70s (I can't find the stats but they scored 390+ goals
> when no one else was withing 70 or 80 of that - if anyone else topped 300
> at all). Those were the days when goalies had averages in the 2's, not like
> today when anything under 4 is good. But it is a fruitless exercise to play
> (how would .... play in another era).
I'm saying that the Oilers offence works against any defense (look at what
happened to the Islanders last year in the finals). I still maintain they
would have at least equalled Boston's record. Sure it is a fruitless exer-
cise to hypothesise these things, so why did you bring it up in the first
place?
Howard C. Simonson
The original question: Why did/does Edmonton ( or any team ) punch a team
in the stomach and then proceed to kick them in the ####s.
An original answer: Your not really watching hockey, your watching life.
Gretzky had just been whistled down for offside and the announcer was saying
how he will try to sneak forward without the officials seeing. My wife turned
to me and said, "Isn't that cheating?" I thought about all the various moves
players make hoping the officials never see and answered "Yes, if your caught."
What happens? Another faceoff, a two minute penalty, a five minute penalty?
If you murder someone, do they suspend you for life?
All in all, it seems a lot like life ( sorta unfortunate comparison ).
Hockey is somewhat unique in this way. A team sport with room for individual
effort. Rules that can be broken or occasionally waved. Infractions that go
unnoticed in the sake of fairness. Frustration and elation sometimes
erupting in physical displays. It is definitely more than just a game.
So don't blame Edmonton for double digit scores when they don't seem necessary.
They just have to go for the records and leave behind a little "we were here",
much the same as you or I.
Enough phylosophy, the Flyers have wrapped up their series and Edmonton just
kicked the 'Hawks in the ####s to finish that series. I say GO FLYERS.
( and that is coming from and old Islander fan :)
If the Flyers can beat Edmonton, they should; if for no other reason, to keep
those Oiler egos in check.
Please hold any replies until I stock the blast furnace. Might as well get
some work out of all that heat.
--
Time for a new catchy phrase in my Howard C. Simonson
.signature, now if I could only ...{dragon,hplabs,ihnp4,nsc}!amdahl!howard
think of one...
[ Opinion? What opinion. I think you have the wrong guy... ]