Monday Mailbag – September 22


As far as I’m concerned, you’ve worked about as much as is necessary for today – it’s time to take a break and learn something.  To make the mailbag work I need your questions.  If you have something you’d like to ask our writers, email me at  Enjoy wasting company time, dear friends.


1) Sevenseven asks – Is the KHL really the second best league in the world, or is the AHL better? Swedish Elite League?

Robin Brownlee: 

Don’t know how you would determine an answer for that. From top to bottom? Just the best teams? My guess is it’s too close to call at the top of each league and that if the top, say, two teams from each league were to meet in a tournament the results would vary from year to year.

Jonathan Willis: 

Yes, the KHL is the world’s second-best league. The best way to determine this is the league-to-league translation work done by Gabriel Desjardins and more recently Rob Vollman. The KHL’s 0.78 equivalency is the highest ratio. Vollman splits the AHL by age, but on balance it’s probably on par with the Swedish Elite League or a little better, and of course in comparison to the NHL there’s a massive advantage in that AHL players are playing in a North American system. After that, the gaps get smaller; the Czechs, Finns, Swiss and Germans all have good pro leagues.


I think the KHL is probably better than the other leagues, but it’s hard to know because the KHL is fluid in terms of adding teams and players. I would rank them KHL, Swedish Elite League (now SHL) and then AHL.

Jason Strudwick: 

It is hard to compare the leagues. They all have their own style. KHL is not physical and quite highly skilled. Swedish Elite league is not quite as skilled but more of a north american style of play. AHL we all know. I think it is great that there are different leagues in the world. The style of hockey in each will continue to blend as time marches on. Check out the Champions League now ongoing in European hockey leagues. Same idea as soccer.

Brian Sutherby: 

The AHL is a fairly young league (20-24 year olds) with a focus on development, the KHL is older so you’re playing against men. I really have no idea though having never been over there.


From all accounts, the KHL is like a beer league with higher paycheques.  


2) Darryl Randolf asks – If the Oilers had chosen Murray, Landeskog, and Seguin over Hall, Nuge, and Yakupov do you think things would be any better, or would they be in the same place with different problems?

Robin Brownlee: 

I’d take the first three over the Oiler trio right now. Three years down the road we’ll know how the Yakupov vs Murray pick stacks up.

Jonathan Willis: 

Given that neither Yakupov nor Murray is a critical difference maker at the moment, I’d say same place, same problems. Our alternate Oilers owuld have a top line of Landeskog, Seguin and Eberle vs. the current top line of Hall, Nugent-Hopkins and Eberle. I don’t see that as a game-changer.


I think they would have chosen the second best player in each draft, which makes no sense. I expect their standing would be similar, as the Oilers’ problems have little to do with their No. 1 overall selections.

Jason Strudwick: 

I said it then and still say it now. The Oilers should have taken Murray. It was a mistake taking another smaller winger when they needed d men. Murray is also a western guy so he would be playing at home. How would the d look with Murray in the mix and some of the other prospects?

Brian Sutherby: 

Switch out Landeskog for Nuge and Murray for Yakupov and I think you might have a better base with one of the NHL’s top wingers in Hall, a very good two way center that has just enough size to manage some of the heavier opponents in the West with Landeskog and a solid defenseman in Murray with plenty of room to grow, yes I think they would be slightly better.

I’m not sold on Yakupov and I think a player of Landeskog’s pedigree is something this team sorely lacks down the middle (especially if they made the playoffs) and we all know the blueline is thin (or has been). The Oilers brass has done a terrible job in my opinion of surrounding Hall, Nuge and Yak with quality players however, so it’s hardly a giant improvement if you inserted those guys, but I do think you have a better foundation to build on.


I think the Oilers picked who they thought would be best at the time.  These picks are fine, it’s the Steve Kelly picks that bother me.  Until the Oilers surround these players with capable veterans the Oilers would be a mess regardless of who they picked.


3) @waydeputnam asks – Do you think coaches look at other teams’ successful specialty team systems when making their own system? You’d think they would all copy the best systems, no? 

Robin Brownlee: 

A lot of systems are similar and teams watch lots of video on opponents with successful special teams to see what they’re doing. The difference between the best and worst special teams is often personnel — who is being plugged into the system being employed.

Jonathan Willis: 

They certainly do, and not just on special teams. But the problem is that a cookie cutter approach doesn’t work – the coach has to optimize his system to the strengths of the team. The power play that works for a team like Edmonton with crazy skill up front but no brilliant blaster from the point is going to be totally different than the one that works for Nashville – which has Shea Weber and not a lot up front. Different teams are going to be successful in different ways.


It’s always been a pet peeve of mine, and I agree. All the good teams have more than one shooter capable of blasting it and try to counter trey the setup. Good teams also feature players moving their feet and offering the puck holder an option.

Jason Strudwick: 

Absolutely! They watch and learn to see what is successful. Not all lineups can play any type of system. That is what separates great coaches. They put in place the right system for their players instead of asking their team to play something they are not capable of having success with.

Brian Sutherby: 

Teams/coaches definitely study film of what works for others, but it can be easier said than done to just recreate it. Teams have all different types of personnel and it’s such a fast game. You can do your best to replicate teams but it doesn’t always work if the players you’re coaching don’t have the same talent or hockey sense.


When I was in PeeWee, my coach used to say “if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying.” I assume coaching plan plagiarism would fall within that.

4) Brian Eaves asks – What do you think is the worst trend in the NHL? (example – diving, summer of analytics, etc)

Robin Brownlee: 

The Oilers missing the playoffs for a ninth straight season would rank up there.

Jonathan Willis: 

The way hockey people use the word “compete.” E.g. “That player has good compete” or “That player has a really high compete level” as opposed to “That player is very competitive.” In all seriousness, I think the game is evolving for the better – players are bigger and faster and the shift towards a possession game is running guys with no puck skills out of the league.


The Bettman point. It’s ruined the game. A win used to mean something, now it means half of something.

Jason Strudwick: 

I guess the only thing would be the trend of getting rid of the cheer teams. They probably help the teams with a few extra wins.

Brian Sutherby: 

Every time there is a good hard hit where the puck carrier has his head down or puts himself in a terrible spot, media outlets and twitter explode with suspension talk (almost nightly). This takes away from all the other great things in the game seems there is always a constant focus on the negative.

Train to the bench after a goal is a close second.


Worst trend? Easy. The Battle of Alberta doesn’t mean anything anymore, and I think that’s a sad state of affairs.


5) Cody Arndt asks – Every year, the NHL goes through rule changes to increase scoring. My question is, what is the real secret to increasing the scoring in the NHL? Can scoring even be increased?

Robin Brownlee: 

More emphasis on stressing the individual skills of players coming up through the ranks and less emphasis on coaching stifling systems and defensive play. It’s all about preventing goals now, not scoring them. Until that changes anything else — bigger nets etc — is just tinkering.

Jonathan Willis: 

Admittedly, this is a good question, but I’m a little upset that I don’t get to see a goofy Strudwick answer to a goofy question here. Eventually I think we’ll see slightly bigger nets – nothing cartoonish, just slight increases to compensate for the massive improvements in goaltending (and, of course, the massive goaltenders who have taken over the position). I’m fine with it; the people who complain that it will make it impossible to compare some 2020 superstar with Grant Fuhr forget that goaltending comparisons are already incredibly era-dependent. Alternatively, the league could always just go towards having the long change for two periods – the second is far-and-away the highest-scoring period in the game.


Goalie equipment. These guys have so much passing they’re on the way to the lacrosse look. People talk about all kinds of improvement in goaltending conditioning and mechanics, but taking away several inches of goalie pads and a few feet of shoulder pad would help a lot.

Jason Strudwick: 

The goalies have improved so much it is hard to score. Everyone can skate and keep up — there’s so little time and space on the ice since the 80’s. Yes the coaches are putting in solid D plans but a lot of it comes back to the lack of space.

Brian Sutherby: 

Goalies are bigger and ten times more athletic than they were 20 years ago, so smaller goalie equipment is number one for me. They say they are changing it every year but never do enough. 

I’ll never understand why a goalies pads need to be wide? They should be the width of player shin pads with more padding in the front to absorb the shot if they want to whine about protection. Make them as thick as you want in the front for protection. The height and the width of pads combined with goalie size and athleticism is killing scoring.


I apologize to the goalies out there, but your equipment is way too big.  Goalie equipment is supposed to be for protection, not for taking up 93% of the available space back there.

  • ubermiguel

    Man I hate that draft question. Always in hindsight and never accurate. The Yakupov or Murray one is especially frustrating as people often forget that had they taken Murray, Schultz likely would have signed elsewhere. So when framing that question it’s are would the Oilers have been better off with Landeskog, Seguin, and Murray, over Hall, Nuge, Yak, and Schultz.

    Also, if they had taken Murray, who would they have picked 6th last year? Would it have been Nurse? Whose to say but if it was someone else, and Nurse turns into a top pairing guy, then drafting Murray over Yak would have been even worse.

    Finally, how each of these players would have affected our place in the standings likely means the Oilers would not have gotten the 3 first overalls, thus changing the outcome once again. Not necessarily saying the team would have done better, but maybe they do worse and end up losing the draft lottery in 2012, and Murray goes first overall anyway, thus, right back to Yak and Schultz.

    Worrying about who they should have picked is just a futile focus. How they make the team better with what they have should be the order of the day.

    • Thumby

      It’s always taken out of context too. Like somehow when the Oilers drafted Hall, they were able to say, hang on, we better draft this Seguin kid because after that we can grab Landeskog and Murray in the next two years. Drafting anything other than BPA, is pretty much a fools errand.

      No one knows how building a team through high end draft picks is going to turn out because they do not determine the BPA rankings. Sure Subban is an amazing talent but at the time he was taken 43rd. By the same metric I think any team can look at any draft and say, do you think the Oilers would have been better off taking … and just list all the best players of each draft that were taken after their picks… it’s stupid. Do you think Chicago would be better off if they drafted Andrew Ladd instead of Cam Barker in 2006? It’s complete nonsense.

      And to be honest, I’m still glad they took Hall over Seguin, Nuge over Landeskog, and Yak over Murray. Especially the last one, as that likely lead to Schultz, and Murray may be good, but he has already ran into injury issues.

    • Ya I caught that as well. He of course is not. He’s quite a good winger, but I think the wings are quite covered. I think Nuge is a long term project.. He will be a good player. Landeskog may be the better individual in the long run.. Actually I’d put money on he will be.. But the Oilers needed C (and still do). I think Landeskog would have been great for the Oilers too, but they’d be even thinner up their currently thin middle without Nuge.

      I would have been good with Murray being selected as this team also needs high end D. But other than that, I like the Oilers picks in recent years. And I still like Yakupov.. Just Murray maybe will pan out to be a pretty good D. Yak will require fan patience as well.

  • ubermiguel

    It’s not second guessing if the question is “what did we miss in selecting or not selecting (insert player name here)?”. That’s what the scouting staff needs to do to improve.

    And it sounds like everyone agrees: smaller goalie equipment to increase scoring. Here’s an image that’s about pricing but is illustrative of the changes:

    The thing I never noticed before was the jersey; it’s much larger and baggier then 50 years ago. Roy in the 90s had a tent, and they came down on that, but it’s still much bigger.

    • Dan 1919

      2 points for a win, 1 point for an OT win, and always 0 points for the loser seems like common sense to me. I think that alone would make the game more offensive.

      There would be no defense until OT as there’d be no advantage. You’d see teams actually pushing for the regulation win to try and get the full 2 points in a playoff race rather than sit on their hands once the game is tied in the second period.

  • The Last Big Bear

    The Yakupov pick shouldn’t even have been a pick at all.

    It should have been a centre piece in a trade, with a first-pairing defenceman coming back (or at least a well-developed future first-pairing guy).

    The Oilers needed (and still need) a first-pairing defenceman now, not 5 years from now.

    • Thumby

      Do you remember a top 2 guy being available for trade at the time? I do not recall a single legit top two guy on the trade block. Heck even Phanuef was getting a new 7 mill contract.

      I suppose that’s right around when Brent Burns went to San Jose. Nope, that happened in 2011. San Jose gave up Setoguchi and Coyle and a 2011 1st round (turned into Zack Phillips?)

      So good for San Jose for winning that one. But what was available in 2012?

      Maybe Yandle? But all reports have pointed to Eberle, not the 2012 1st round as the starting point for that deal.

      So potentially Eberle and Yak for Yandle? That’s crazy. Do you have any suggestions on a trade back then? Because there was a strong feeling of no one wanted to take a chance on Yak that year.

      And of everyone who went in the first round that year, none are really excelling. Morgan Reily maybe the best of the first round so far. Galchenyuk was on fire to start but has not been that tremendous. Murray too has been just okay. Finally Tanner Pearson or maybe Teravainen both have shots this year. But still, it was a shallow draft and the Oilers have so far gotten the best player from that draft.

    • Quicksilver ballet

      You might get a first pairing d’man for the first pick in 2015. Not so much for the Yakupov draft class. This is clearly evident even only 2 years after the fact. First pick in a less than ideal draft classes is probably why we haven’t seen any Burkonian type of trades on draft day during the last few summers.

      Have to believe the Oilers tried to do just that, right up until minutes before the draft began. None of the first 4 selections were sure bets, like a top pairing blueliner already is.

  • Quicksilver ballet

    My favorite part about this article is the Nuge and Yak haters magic ability to turn Landeskog from a left winger into a great two-way centerman.

  • Quicksilver ballet

    Move the crossbar up one inch, and both posts out an inch and it would increase scoring by almost 2 goals a game. If there’s 4 posts hit per game, half of those shots go off the post/crossbar and in*

    *Angus Reid poll survey from 2010-2014.

    Move the boards out 2 feet on all 4 sides. A 74″ wide 49″ tall net would bring the game into the 21st century.

    • Czar

      If they don’t want to increase the net size, then regulate smaller equipment for the tenders. My pet nettle is the size of their shin pads, and more so the shoulder pads. They are as wide as the goal itself. [They must have small cranes in the dressing room to hoist these things onto the shoulders.

  • Quicksilver ballet

    Scoring will remain a problem so long as league wants parody for one. For second reason it remains low is equipment size of all , which goalies are biggest detriment to that . Third , and probably most important is the gap between elite talent and others has drastically been reduced over the years along with speed and size of the athletes . Fourth is officiating the scores of games , which appears to be prevalent in many matchups . Increasing the goal size is the most effective way to change the game and scoring and show off the elite talent . However it might destroy the parody which most seem to favor as priority one and make officiating that much more difficult to administer as well . Parody seems paramount over opening up the game .

  • The Last Big Bear

    Worst trend: Hockey world making up their own term which mean the exact opposite of what it should.


    Several years ago someone in the hockey world misspoke and “On track” became “untracked” and now it is used in hockey coverage all the time.

    These are opposite ideas in the real world.

  • Quicksilver ballet

    Landeskog isn’t a centerman, how are you writing for this site and don’t know that?

    Another point would be Ryan Murray’s health. Anyone aware of how much hockey he has actually played over the past few years? I’ll tell you it sure isn’t a whole hell of a lot, if we took him we’d be calling him just another oft injured band aid, along with being told we rushed him because he gets hurt frequently. Same old song and dance, different name. (he’s currently injured at cbj camp with another knee injury)

  • OilClog

    The Nuge is a better player then Landeskog, Nuge should of been the calder winner hands down.

    Hall is the best player out of them all.

    Taking a defenceman 1st overall is chaotic stupud, if anything Yaks Sarnia teammate would be the better choice compared to Murray.

    I’d take Schultz and Nurse over Murray.

    The Oilers top picks are not the problem! It’s surrounding them with minimal talent (Struds) and horrible coaching (buchy/smith/Chabot)

    Absolutely maddening to think taking the 2 or 3rd best player available at 1st overall is acceptable or wanted.

  • The Soup Fascist

    I think if Landeskog HAD been a center he would have been the pick. Alas, he is a winger.

    I think there is still some story to be written on Seguin and Murray (and with Hall and Yak as well).

    The thing about Seguin is: were his struggles in Boston a question of maturity or character? If it is the former he will have a long productive career in Dallas, if it is the latter – expect another trade in 3 years or so. Jury is still out for me, honestly.

    Murray needs to play awhile without getting hurt before I am all-in. He just seems to have a Kris Russell vibe about him. Give me the horse defenseman if I am picking one OV, not the pony.

  • ubermiguel

    1. Murray was and still is vastly overrated. I’d be willing to bet that both Nurse and Klefbom (health permitting) have better careers.

    2. Drafting Seguin instead of Hall changes things totally. Landeskog wouldn’t have been our pick, Larsson would have been.

    3. Best thing to add offense is bigger rinks, but the NHL owners aren’t going to cut rows of the expensive seats, so the next best thing is limiting offsides to a soccer-style read where offensive players can be over the blueline before the puck as long as defenders are ahead of them – that would kill the trap.

    4. Goalie equipment reductions and/or a bigger net would help, but allowing more attackers up so defenses can’t setup and block space would be better (see above)

  • ubermiguel

    Net size is one of those things you just should not change. It’s like making a 1st down in football 9 yards or making baseball bases 80 feet apart. Players’ (i.e.: goalies’) equipment evolves and needs to be regulated, but some parts of the game have to be sacrament.

  • ubermiguel

    1)Suds – Landeskog is not a centre

    2) People can bash the yakupov pick all they want, but if we picked Murray it would not have mattered. I GUARANTEE he would not have been a difference maker to this team. He played on an effin playoff team in the East (you know the weaker conference as opposed to the Giants of the Pacific division)

    Also Murray has only played 60 some games and has consistently been injured over the past few seasons.

    Ryan Murray’s most common 5 on 5 partner was Wiz. Their CF together was 51.6 which is pretty good. When Murray was without Wiz he looked like an oiler with CF of 44.3 where as Wiz jumped to 54.5. Looks like Wiz may have been carrying Murray.

    Murray’s next common D partner was Savard. Now I don’t have to be an expert to assume they played soft minutes together. When they were together, they had a CF of 40.

    So how would Ryan Murray look here in Edmonton playing with our D core, in front of Devan Dubnyk, and with little support from our AHL littered forward depths? I’ll let the Yak haters ponder that.

  • vetinari

    On the increasing scoring question. The answer is easy. Take a look at the post lockout 05-06 to 09-10 seasons. The biggest difference? The NHL came up with a plan to increase scoring or offense through trying to rid the game of interference based infractions. Basically the league took a new hard line approach to calling penalties on things that would hve never been penalties even 5 years before. Remember Smyth getting worked over all those years by Hatcher? That would have never flown in the 05-06 NHL.
    Power play oprutunities were up big time and so was goal scoring. Ovie was potting 60+. Goal scoring was through the roof in the ‘new NHL.’ I remember commentators referimg to crazy scores and the new rules all the time on TSN and Sportsnet.
    Then the league for whatever reason it was (and it’s debatable) told the refs to put their whistles away again. I would say a major turning point was actually the Bruins cup run. Power play oprutunities that year (or around that time) seemed to plummet in the playoffs and this trend continued into the next few regular seasons and playoffs. The NHL more less has allowed every old interference based infraction back into the game like the ones that plagued the NHL in the mid 90’s to the early 2000’s.
    The reasons the NHL has allowed the refs to put away the whistles again is interesting. We all know the more PP ops a team or game has the more likely there is to be high quality scoring chances (shots) and therefore goals.
    I think the league was getting freaked out though by how fast the game had become. Concussions were up. Crosby had pretty well missed a whole season. The NHL was facing an epidemic that had to be solved and I think the brain trust at the league head quarters thought that for whatever reason, reverting back to the old ‘clutch and grab’ interference style game of the 90’s would slow the game down and quell the concussion issue. Now whether concussions and pp oprutunities are correlated is something I haven’t the time to look up. I’m just guessing here. At the same time the NHL tried on rack down on head hunting (hits to the head etc etc) so I may not be totally right. The shift back to having refs call less penalties may also be an NHL culture thing of ‘let the boys play ref’ which is ridiculous IMO as refs decide games by letting calls go just as much as they do by calling legitimate penalties at times.
    Either way, if the NHL wants to have more goals being scored all they have to do is call more penalties ‘by the book’ or at least by the post 06 lockout book that existed for a few years. Goal scoring was up big then.

  • ubermiguel

    I’m pretty sure Bruce McCurdy at the cult of hockey did a peice on the decline of the NHL ref calling penalties from the 05 – 06 season to the lockout version 3.0 in 2012-13. If I remember correctly he very neatly displayed in some graphs that PP’s per game had declined quite a bit over that time and that playoff games, especially clinching games and overtime periods had way less PP ops called in them, which is easy to see if you watch hockey. Whether this is correct, and done by the league or officials on purpose is high debatable again as I feel a ref influences game by setting standards early of what is or isn’t a penalty and upholding these standards throughout the game and season.
    Unfortunately these standards seem to haw changed again and therefore we have less PP ops per game and less scoring in the NHL.
    If the league wants skill to be emphasized, they have to stop allowing the interference based infractions back into the game. Highly skilled players are very good at clutching, grabbing, hooking etc etc all at the right times or just the right amount so as to not get whistles by refs.


    The only way to decrease goalie equipment is to first go back to wooden stick to decrease shot velocity. I would also eliminate hard cap elbow pads so players can hang around in front of the net.


    Actually last the full 2 minutes, despite if a goal is scored in the first 10 seconds.
    Penalty Time gets recorded in the books full no?


    In my mind Hall and RNH were the obvious choices. I like Nail, but I look at it as if we picked Murray that year and draft positions being the same (though I think not having Nail’s stellar rookie season would put us higher in the draft), if we had Murray we may have been more inclined to pick Nichuskin. I would take Murray and Nichuskin over Yakupov and Nurse personally.

  • vetinari

    We all Gagner will bounce back this year. He’ll become a 60 pt per season guy. Win the Selke trophy and lead Arizona to the Stanley Cup. He’s a former Oiler and that’s just our luck.

  • Mike Modano's Dog

    Goalie equipment should definitely be smaller! (It’s killing the game for me!)

    To see these goalies go into a stance and never move is the most boring thing to see.

    There is so much extra –
    goalie pants THREE TIMES the size of the goalie’s waist
    The pads are ridiculously long and needlessly wide. (RB saying JDD looked like ‘Gumby’ when he first began wearing them is the best description ever

    Jersey and chest protectors can be out of control too.

    All of these things reduce the need to see athleticism or even make saves anymore. Put less needless equipment on the goalies and you will see smaller more athletic goalies back – and obviously more goals with the players having some actual net to look at.

    Goaltending is the most beautiful position in all of sports, and the modern era has basically removed it from existence.

    To me it would be the same thing if they removed goalies from the game altogether and player scored 200+ goals in a season. Who cares, you didn’t score against anyone, and there wouldn’t be truly any competition. It’s the same thing to me when a goalie doesn’t have to move because in his equipment he blocks the entire net.

    Just look at pictures of Patrick Roy in his rookie season as opposed to later in his career. Same goalie, same size but vast difference!

    They used to marvel at tony esposito’s season where his saw percentage was .900! Now, unless you’ve got to have a .920 save percentage just to stay in the league.

    • vetinari

      My guess is you’ve never stood infront of someone who can shoot….

      Perhaps everyone who complains about goalies should try and invent and test some new gear, You could take your newspaper pads and go stand infront of chara and he could blast pucks at you for 10 minutes…

      As for comparing the Old standup goalies to today’s hybrids, it doesn’t matter what size of gear you use, there is a VAST difference in the style which increases the amount of the bottom of the net (Where about 75% of goals are scored) Cover the area where the majority of goals are scored greatly decreases the amount of goals scored… oh yeah and the wind mill glove save doesn’t exist anymore… there are more effcient ways to catch the puck…

      I might add that a goalie is often among the most fit and athletic on the team. go ahead and ask the Oilers about it.

      Try and play the position prior to commenting on it..

      • PlayDirty

        You mean block shots like forwards and defencemen do?

        There is way less ‘style’ because they don’t need to do anything. Does more efficient mean because their glove takes up 3x as much space so they don’t have to move it?

        And yes, I played a bit of goal in the day.

        • PlayDirty

          That’s what I’m talking about. If you played now you’d understand how hard you actually have to work to make a save. No one blocks 30 shots a game… Oh wait goalies do…
          Stand up goalies like you get scored on so much cause their style of play is ineffective and the shooters weren’t half as good as they are today… Everyone has hands now. Try and play with any pro and tell him that…
          Different era bud..
          Thanks for coming out

          • PlayDirty

            The question was about ‘how to increase goal scoring’ not ‘how to better protect goalies’. I actually appreciate goalies who use their athleticism to stop the pucks rather than laying on the ice and simply trying to block the net.

  • ThinkingOutLoud

    @ J Willis

    I couldn’t agree more about “compete”. Every time they misuse that word a kitten dies.

    I mean, what’s next?

    – The team wins a lot of games! They have great defeat.
    – Sir Edmund Hillary sure had great climb.
    – Though they tried every night, Pinky and the Brain had poor dominate.
    – Nolan Ryan had great throw.
    – Wile E Coyote had terrible catch.
    – Aristotle had great think.

    All I can think of is Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction…