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 baggedmilk@oilersnation.com.  Enjoy wasting company time, dear friends.

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.

Lowetide: 

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.  

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.

Lowetide: 

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? 

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.

Lowetide: 

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.

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.

Lowetide: 

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.

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.

Lowetide: 

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.