Jump to content

So when will the Devils be competitive again?


Daniel

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Devils Pride 26 said:

Too many quiet patches this season. Coming out of the gate he was buzzing but after the early injury haven't seen a dominant stretch. 

He's had a bafflingly low shooting% for roughly half a season's worth of games...REALLY hope that's isolated, but his shooting%s have been meh-ish in recent years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Satans Hockey said:

If we didn't trade Hall for Adam then who the hell is scoring for this team? We would probably have around the same points as Colorado. 

Not saying that Shero shouldn't have made the deal...under the circumstances and this team's needs, he absolutely should have.  He had to take that chance.  Just saying that Hall may ultimately not be as productive as we hope, and really NEED him to be.  And that losing Larsson hurt more than we'd like to admit.

Hopefully Shero can find someone to complement Hall sooner than later. 

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Not saying that Shero shouldn't have made the deal...under the circumstances and this team's needs, he absolutely should have.  He had to take that chance.  Just saying that Hall may ultimately not be as productive as we hope (really NEED) him to be.  And that losing Larsson hurt more than we'd like to admit.

It's a hard argument for me because if we weren't getting anyone else the offense would be even more abysmal than it already is. Even if Adam helped bring the goals against down I don't know where the scoring is coming from.

I like Hall but my biggest complaint is that he doesn't shoot enough, he seems to always try to make the perfect pass it's just the talent he is passing to sometimes is horrible, he's tried to pass to some of our awful defenseman instead of shooting it himself and it's the one thing I complain about with him. I think he's just trying to do to much sometimes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Based on you declaring as such?  Larsson is helping the Oilers, even if he's not a big glamour numbers offensive numbers guy...they needed a good, young defenseman, and Larsson has been good for them...they paid for it, but it's not like they're missing Hall much, if at all.  Like we've noted, Hall hasn't had great puck luck this season, but his shooting%s haven't really been anything special the past two seasons prior to this one.  Hall was brought in to help the Devils evolve and make a difference, and this top-line forward (yes, he should be that) isn't really doing that.  Obviously it's not all on him, as guys like Cory Schneider being up and down and trainwrecks like Killjoy have nothing to do with him, and we've seen some moments from Hall (enough where I'm far from giving up on him), but for you to declare in classic "because I'm Tri" fashion that the Devils already won this deal in a landslide is just wrong.  And that's been my point since the deal was made...not that it was ever a mistake to make it, not that Shero shouldn't have done it, just that this deal could turn out to be a lot better for Edmonton than many thought. 

The Devils have already won this deal in a landslide.  Adam Larsson is an average defenseman.  He doesn't do anything particularly well, nor is he particularly bad at anything.  He's there and he can play 20 minutes a night and not hurt you.  The 'it's not like they're missing Hall' point is asinine.  The Oilers are 12th in the NHL in goal scoring - I imagine they could use a 1st line LW.  

Hall is not a great percentage shooter, but that's not what he was brought in to do.  He's a top-line forward already and that's with the dross he has to carry around the ice nightly.  He's shooting 4% at 5 on 5 - that will happen.  I imagine some of it is a function of just how much he has the puck.  But for his career he looks to be around an 8% shooter 5 on 5 and I don't see any reason why he wouldn't return to that level.

The reason the deal would turn out well for Edmonton is either if Larsson gets massively better (he's shown absolutely no signs of doing so in Year 1 in Edmonton and he is 24 years old) or if they manage to make other good moves that paper over how poor a move this was for them.  It's atrocious value for Edmonton and if Shero made a similar deal it would be grounds for firing.  Edmonton is lucky enough that they've finished last so often that they can afford to throw away value like this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be funny when Edmonton signs Kris Russell to a long term deal, as if the Lucic deal hasn't already been sh!tty enough.

The only reason Edmonton is going to the playoffs is because of being carried by the second best player in the world. McDavid is a year more experienced and hasn't been hurt this year and is absolutely carrying. That, and riding Talbot into the ground. Talbot has been pretty good for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Triumph said:

The Devils have already won this deal in a landslide.  Adam Larsson is an average defenseman.  He doesn't do anything particularly well, nor is he particularly bad at anything.  He's there and he can play 20 minutes a night and not hurt you.  The 'it's not like they're missing Hall' point is asinine.  The Oilers are 12th in the NHL in goal scoring - I imagine they could use a 1st line LW.  

Hall is not a great percentage shooter, but that's not what he was brought in to do.  He's a top-line forward already and that's with the dross he has to carry around the ice nightly.  He's shooting 4% at 5 on 5 - that will happen.  I imagine some of it is a function of just how much he has the puck.  But for his career he looks to be around an 8% shooter 5 on 5 and I don't see any reason why he wouldn't return to that level.

The reason the deal would turn out well for Edmonton is either if Larsson gets massively better (he's shown absolutely no signs of doing so in Year 1 in Edmonton and he is 24 years old) or if they manage to make other good moves that paper over how poor a move this was for them.  It's atrocious value for Edmonton and if Shero made a similar deal it would be grounds for firing.  Edmonton is lucky enough that they've finished last so often that they can afford to throw away value like this.

If you're saying that Larsson isn't flashy or has any one big skill that stands out, OK...and I know this number has its flaws, but Larsson was a +15 last season (though it's fair to point out Cammalleri was too, in a lot less games), and he's a +17 this season (both compared very well to his teammates).  The non-flashy "rock" guys can contribute too, in different ways.  Again, the Oilers clearly needed a solid, steady defenseman, and it looks like Larsson can be that, for many years.  He doesn't have the upside of a guy like Hall, and you can argue that Edmonton should've gotten something else along with Larsson in that trade, but at least the Oilers dealt from depth to fill a need...of course, once you luck into a guy like McDavid, it opens up other possibilities...like overpaying to get Larsson.  But at least the guy the Oilers got has helped them, and like you noted, he's not hurting them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

If you're saying that Larsson isn't flashy or has any one big skill that stands out, OK...and I know this number has its flaws, but Larsson was a +15 last season (though it's fair to point out Cammalleri was too, in a lot less games), and he's a +17 this season (both compared very well to his teammates).  The non-flashy "rock" guys can contribute too, in different ways.  Again, the Oilers clearly needed a solid, steady defenseman, and it looks like Larsson can be that, for many years.  He doesn't have the upside of a guy like Hall, and you can argue that Edmonton should've gotten something else along with Larsson in that trade, but at least the Oilers dealt from depth to fill a need...of course, once you luck into a guy like McDavid, it opens up other possibilities...like overpaying to get Larsson.  But at least the guy the Oilers got has helped them, and like you noted, he's not hurting them. 

Plus-minus is just not a good measure of who is or is not a good player.  It is over several seasons but even then you need to take into account context.  So Larsson is being called +32, but 5 on 5 he is +19.  When you consider shots on goal, Larsson is -67 over the same stretch.  Defensemen have not demonstrated the ability to control on-ice save percentage or shooting percentage, so what we've got here is probably some luck.  Meanwhile Hall is +89 over the same stretch, and he only played 70 minutes with Connor McDavid versus the 300 minutes Larsson's played.

No one said Larsson is bad.  He's an average defenseman.  But he is not Taylor Hall, and the Oilers made a bad trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Triumph said:

 The 'it's not like they're missing Hall' point is asinine.  The Oilers are 12th in the NHL in goal scoring - I imagine they could use a 1st line LW.  

 

Does this not make sense to anyone else?  You say the Oilers are 12th in the NHL in scoring, (which ins't that bad.  It's almost top 10, and obviously in the top half of the league), and then you say you imagine they could use a 1st line LW.  Which is it?  Because being 12th pretty good.  It's better than 18 other teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, NJDfan1711 said:

Does this not make sense to anyone else?  You say the Oilers are 12th in the NHL in scoring, (which ins't that bad.  It's almost top 10, and obviously in the top half of the league), and then you say you imagine they could use a 1st line LW.  Which is it?  Because being 12th pretty good.  It's better than 18 other teams.

If teams were competing for the Pretty Good trophy where you're only looking to be in the top 10, then sure, 12th is great.  But they're competing for the Stanley Cup, and the 12th best scoring team usually needs to have around the best defense to win that.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, NJDfan1711 said:

Does this not make sense to anyone else?  You say the Oilers are 12th in the NHL in scoring, (which ins't that bad.  It's almost top 10, and obviously in the top half of the league), and then you say you imagine they could use a 1st line LW.  Which is it?  Because being 12th pretty good.  It's better than 18 other teams.

Not when you, 11 teams better than you in this regard, and only 3 teams worse than you, are all desperately scraping for 16 wins en route to win a Stanley Cup; every facet of your game needs to outmatch potentially 4 rounds worth of opponents.

If Edmonton fans and media are just satisfied with making the playoffs every year for a round or two, then fine, maybe they can content themselves with oversimplifying and justifying the Hall trade. But I still think they'd be a better team this year with Taylor Hall than Adam Larsson. They were due to be a playoff team by now, and realizing that potential was inevitable. I don't think Larsson-for-Hall somehow pushed them over some brink, they were always overdue for being a playoff team. I don't see them magically not making the playoffs if Hall were on their team still.

Edited by DJ Eco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its' like an endless tragicomedy

When Daryl Katz bought Oilers, he told locals - no playoffs in this old barn. Edmontonians and all fans around the globe waited patiently, before the Rogers Place finally open it's gates. 12 terrible seasons of waiting, losing fans, dissapointments, etc. Now the Place is ready, and Oilers is flourishing

Our problem is neither Shero, nor any of the management send us some glues. Do we need a new place? No. We move, as example, to another NJ city? No. What should we wait for? No idea. We don't sink, but not sail. Just stuck on the rocks

Good point - maybe they are preparing some kind of surprise. But i don't know what to expect from them

Bad point - look at 76's and English soccer team Crystal Palace. They are own by the Devils' owners

Edited by EZ76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, EZ76 said:

Our problem is neither Shero, nor any of the management send us some glues. Do we need a new place? No. We move, as example, to another NJ city? No. What should we wait for? No idea. We don't sink, but not sail. Just stuck on the rocks.

Maybe you have no idea, but the idea is pretty clear that we have the long overdue task of painfully removing ourselves from under the rocks of 10+ seasons of mismanagement by Lou, Vanderbeek, & Co. I feel crazy having to remind Devils fans that we lost players like Kovalchuk and Parise for NOTHING, with Shero handed a roster of 33-42 year olds (and a spoiled fanbase expecting him to do something positive with it). It's really incredibly clear what our team needs to do, and is doing; it's clear as day what phase this team is in right now. The Oilers making the playoffs will have had nothing to do with "ringing in a new arena", and everything to do with the fact that it's pretty much their destiny to have made the playoffs by now. A monkey could run that team, with McDavid and more mature prospects and good goaltending by Cam Talbot, and take them to playoffs; we don't really need to grasp for intangibles to explain Edmonton finally being a playoff team.

 

15 minutes ago, EZ76 said:

Good point - maybe they are preparing some kind of surprise. But i don't know what to expect from them.

I'll be surprised if the "fixing Lou's mistakes" phase of this team takes any less than 3-4 years. I guess I have a fundamental existential disagreement with fans who can't grasp how FUBAR Lamoriello, Vanderbeek, and Conte left this team, and how much work there is (still) left to be done.

 

15 minutes ago, EZ76 said:

Bad point - look at 76's and English soccer team Crystal Palace. They are own by the Devils' owners.

Billionaire investors who find value in buying low on depreciating assets; nothing really more to see here. We'll never know how close to bankruptcy (or worse, league control of finances/transaction or relocation) we came thanks to Vanderbeek's mismanagement as an owner, but Harris and Blitzer saved us from that. I wish more Devils fans realized how depreciating an asset this team was, people have this idea in their heads that Lou and Vanderbeek handed these owners a shiny new Ferrari, but the truth is this team was a piece of sh!t in need of saving.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EZ76 said:

Its' like an endless tragicomedy

When Daryl Katz bought Oilers, he told locals - no playoffs in this old barn. Edmontonians and all fans around the globe waited patiently, before the Rogers Place finally open it's gates. 12 terrible seasons of waiting, losing fans, dissapointments, etc. Now the Place is ready, and Oilers is flourishing

Our problem is neither Shero, nor any of the management send us some glues. Do we need a new place? No. We move, as example, to another NJ city? No. What should we wait for? No idea. We don't sink, but not sail. Just stuck on the rocks

Good point - maybe they are preparing some kind of surprise. But i don't know what to expect from them

Bad point - look at 76's and English soccer team Crystal Palace. They are own by the Devils' owners

That is quite possibly the oddest way of looking at history that I have ever seen.  That would make sense if ownership suddenly completed planning, approvals, funding, construction and opening in a matter of months since the end of last year.  Instead the ball got rolling on the new arena in 2011 so there is a period of about 5-6 years of suckage in between.  If Rogers Place opened 1 or 2 years earlier, what tune would you be singing then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does Crystal Palace have to do with anything? The EPL is such a different dynamic than the NHL or NBA, unless you're one of the privileged few or have a 1-5,000 season like Leicester most bubble teams' only goal is to stay in the EPL and reap the millions of dollars that come with it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DJ Eco said:

I'll be surprised if the "fixing Lou's mistakes" phase of this team takes any less than 3-4 years. I guess I have a fundamental existential disagreement with fans who can't grasp how FUBAR Lamoriello, Vanderbeek, and Conte left this team, and how much work there is (still) left to be done

List of Lou's mistakes :lol: :lol:

Stanley Cups 3 (1994–95, 1999–00, 2002–03)
Conference championships 5 (1994–95, 1999–00, 2000–01, 2002–03, 2011–12)
   
Division championships 9 (1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99, 2000–01, 2002–03, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2008–09, 2009–10)
Edited by EZ76
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DevsMan84 said:

If Rogers Place opened 1 or 2 years earlier, what tune would you be singing then?

If Rogers opened 1-2 years earlier, Oilers will reach playoffs 1-2 years earlier than now. Without any songs

Edited by EZ76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2017 at 3:48 PM, Triumph said:

If teams were competing for the Pretty Good trophy where you're only looking to be in the top 10, then sure, 12th is great.  But they're competing for the Stanley Cup, and the 12th best scoring team usually needs to have around the best defense to win that.

Where did the competing for the Cup argument come from?  No one said anything about that.  The discussion was about whether or not the Oilers are missing Hall, be it as a team, or just in terms of scoring. And clearly, they really aren't.   Last year they were 26th in the league in scoring and finished with exactly 5 more goals than they already have right now with still 14 games remaining.  This year they're 12th.  That's a pretty huge difference in just one year.  Hell, it would be a huge difference even if their roster stayed the same and they still HAD Hall.  But the fact that they lost him?  Proves the point even further.  

I'm neither a "stats/sabre metrics" nor "fundamentals" guy, I look at everything, but from a purely statistical standpoint. they aren't missing Hall.

 

4 hours ago, DJ Eco said:

Not when you, 11 teams better than you in this regard, and only 3 teams worse than you, are all desperately scraping for 16 wins en route to win a Stanley Cup; every facet of your game needs to outmatch potentially 4 rounds worth of opponents.

If Edmonton fans and media are just satisfied with making the playoffs every year for a round or two, then fine, maybe they can content themselves with oversimplifying and justifying the Hall trade. But I still think they'd be a better team this year with Taylor Hall than Adam Larsson. They were due to be a playoff team by now, and realizing that potential was inevitable. I don't think Larsson-for-Hall somehow pushed them over some brink, they were always overdue for being a playoff team. I don't see them magically not making the playoffs if Hall were on their team still.

Not true at all.  Last year we were somewhat of a bubble playoff team, and we were DEAD LAST in scoring, and while the defense was better than it was this year, we by no means had anywhere near the best defense either, so that argument is pretty much moot.

I'm not saying the Oilers would be missing the playoffs if they still had Hall instead of Larsson, but I think it's pretty clear that they had enough scoring as it is, and they needed a great d-man to balance our their roster and get them to where they are now.  Their roster was deeper, and, honestly, better than ours, so the trade, while pretty fair overall, definitely benefited them more because they got what they needed.  Us on the other hand, we basically ended up with a wash (at least for now), and traded a good d-man (which made our defense worse and with a hole, naturally), for a good forward who has provided some, but not a lot, of scoring for us, and doesn't have many complementary weapons.

The jury is still out on this, but overall it's not a fleece job for anyone, and while the trade is/was pretty fair, like I said, in terms of who benefited more, it's definitely Edmonton right now.

Edited by NJDfan1711
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DJ Eco said:

Maybe you have no idea, but the idea is pretty clear that we have the long overdue task of painfully removing ourselves from under the rocks of 10+ seasons of mismanagement by Lou, Vanderbeek, & Co. I feel crazy having to remind Devils fans that we lost players like Kovalchuk and Parise for NOTHING, with Shero handed a roster of 33-42 year olds (and a spoiled fanbase expecting him to do something positive with it)

Sure i have no idea about team's future. But you probably have no memories what Lou did for Devils 

'The Devils made the playoffs in all but five of his 27 seasons as GM, and appeared in the Stanley Cup Finals in 1995 (won), 2000 (won), 2001 (lost), 2003 (won) and 2012 (lost)'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Lamoriello#Devils_President_and_general_manager

Nobody lost Kovalchuk. 
Man announced himself that he 'want retire from the NHL, expressing a desire to return to Russia along with his family'. And Lou had nothing to do with it. Parise, Clarkson? Look at the time, when they run. Coincidence? Maybe

4 hours ago, DJ Eco said:

It's really incredibly clear what our team needs to do, and is doing; it's clear as day what phase this team is in right now

Losing to toilet teams, and became leagues' laughing stock. Incredibly clear way to playoffs

4 hours ago, DJ Eco said:

Billionaire investors who find value in buying low on depreciating assets; nothing really more to see here. We'll never know how close to bankruptcy (or worse, league control of finances/transaction or relocation) we came thanks to Vanderbeek's mismanagement as an owner, but Harris and Blitzer saved us from that.

Excellent. While others' goal is Stanley Cup, we must be satisfied with only fact, that our team saved from bankruptcy.

4 hours ago, DJ Eco said:

but the truth is this team was a piece of sh!t in need of saving.

This team was a Stanley Cup finalist. And since the arrival of the new saviours, they're total nonsense. That's truth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Where did the competing for the Cup argument come from?  No one said anything about that.  The discussion was about whether or not the Oilers are missing Hall, be it as a team, or just in terms of scoring. And clearly, they really aren't.   Last year they were 26th in the league in scoring and finished with exactly 5 more goals than they already have right now with still 14 games remaining.  This year they're 12th.  That's a pretty huge difference in just one year.  Hell, it would be a huge difference even if their roster stayed the same and they still HAD Hall.  But the fact that they lost him?  Proves the point even further.  

I'm neither a "stats/sabre metrics" nor "fundamentals" guy, I look at everything, but from a purely statistical standpoint. they aren't missing Hall.

 

The team that is 12th in the league in scoring can use more scoring.  I mean if you want to get technical, so can the team that's 1st in scoring, but even so, having a slightly-above average offense shouldn't be the Oilers' aim. 'We're in 12th, guys, guess we're done.'  It should be to have the best offense.  And of course much of the difference between this and last year is McDavid, who missed half of last season and who wasn't as good as he is this season.  The Oilers could have Hall and McDavid on different lines and basically the combination of that would be like having 2 regular 1st lines.  They could've tried to sign a comparable RHD to Larsson and gone with that and forgotten about Lucic.  Instead, they signed Lucic and traded Hall for Larsson.   A lot of things are going to work out for a team that has a player as good as McDavid, but the Oilers could've made much better choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sundstrom said:

ez76 - i would like to respond but before i do, please answer honestly if you are trolling or are serious with your responses. 

I can't take seriously such funny arguments. 'We're total joke, but at least we're not bankrots'

You support an opposite point? OK, lets' see. Time will show who's right

Edited by EZ76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EZ76 said:

I can't take seriously such funny arguments. 'We're total joke, but at least we're not bankrots'

You support an opposite point? OK, lets' see. Time will show who's right

there is either a language barrier, a troll job, or just an utter lack of understanding. i'm not sure i have the patience to deal with any but the first. but the attitude means I'll just forget it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.