Monday Mailbag – Where did the goals go?

Now, I’m not going to suggest that you’ve wandered over to this website during company time because you have no desire to work, but I’m not ready to take that off the table. I mean, I get it. You’re back at work after spending the weekend doing whatever it is that you do and you need to get the engine running before you can move forward. Sometimes starting the engine involves spending a few minutes reading the answers to questions you’ve always wondered about, and that’s where the mailbag comes in. If there’s something you’d like to know, feel free to email me your question or hit me up on Twitter and I’ll try to get you in as soon as possible. Until then, I present this week’s edition of the mailbag. Enjoy.

Yes. There’s a reason you hear so many people around the game say that defence can be taught but offensive ability can’t, which isn’t something that makes a lot of sense to me.  You hear that less these days, though, so perhaps we’re seeing an evolution. Regardless, many, many studies have shown that humans tend to be risk-averse, often sacrificing what statistically is a good shot at a big gain if it entails a moderate risk. NHL coaches aren’t wired all that differently from the rest of us.

Yes, same as it ever was. A coach is interested in controlling outcomes and chances are most nights the actual talent on each team will be about equal. Cutting down on mistakes makes sense in such a close contest.

It is easier to coach defence, but what “system” could you use offensively. They do discuss supporting the puck and staying close, as well as certain ways to cycle. To me it is putting more of an onus on offensive skills. Practice them more. Hockey is so free flowing it is rare to have a perfect alignment to used set plays per se. On the PP they work on it more of course, because the defence is often set up in the same spot.

Does a bear shit in the woods?

I don’t think there’s any question about it. To some degree every system is about defense.

Defense first, goals come later, right? I do believe in that, however, I think it depends on the circumstances. If you have naturally amazing forwards like Crosby, Ovechkin, Kessel, etc…. you can probably spend more time working on defense systems than offense.

Look at the young guys in the NHL right now. A lot of these players have insane puck skills because they spent their entire lives working on them. When you’re a kid, who wants to work on defense, right? I guess that’s why they have to learn it at the NHL level. 

The real answer is I have no idea but I’d rather ramble on and pretend like I do. 

These things happen to middling teams, which is what I see the Oilers as. The typical wildcard winner doesn’t go through the entire season posting a 5-4-1 record every 10 games. Instead they have highs and lows and in the end those things balance out. There’s a lot of stuff the coaches can work on at the micro level – Edmonton’s scoring chances for have dipped, while chances against have gone up – but from a big-picture viewpoint not a whole lot has changed.

Regression in goal and injuries are the most likely culprits, although the Nuge and Leon lines slumping this long is probably a real concern at this point (this is written 11/17).

They were overachieving in the first eight games. They weren’t going to stay at that pace. They faced tougher competition in the next eight as well. Their record after 16 games is likely a true representation of who they are a as a team. If they can end up having six or seven more wins than losses (regulation) they will be right in the mix to make the playoffs.

They didn’t fall off. Just an extended high-speed wobble until they avoided ending upside down in the ditch and on fire by waxing Dallas. Oilers had too many of their go-to guys not getting it done during the five-game losing streak. Oilers weren’t as good at their 7-2-1 record to start and weren’t as bad as they appeared during the losing streak.

The shooting percentage fell to about half the league average and Talbot started letting in 3-4 goals a night. Combine some legitimately bad starts and there’s the makings for an extended losing streak. I mean, it’s tough to win with goaltending below .900 and with no scoring from the 2nd and 3rd lines.

Our first big loss was Ottawa. We pretty much immediately wrote it off because of the circumstances of it being Craig Anderson’s first game back. Maybe that was a bad decision? Next game was Toronto, and from there we went for a tumble. I honestly very confused by how this whole situation fell apart on us, but it began against Ottawa.

No goals no wins, brah. I don’t know if I remember a time when an entire group of forwards has slumped at the same time like what’s going on with the Oilers right now. Combine a lack of goal scoring with some mediocre goaltending performances and you’re generally in for a bad time. 

The Oilers are out-shooting, but the chances have turned south. Over time, chances and shots correlate strongly, but it doesn’t happen by itself – it happens because coaches are constantly pushing their teams to do a better job in the offensive/defensive zones. At even-strength, there’s a need to drive the net more, to generate more second opportunities and more chances from the hard areas of the ice, and I’d be very surprised if that isn’t what the coaching staff is stressing.

I would run Eberle with Nuge and Pouliot, and push one of the wingers up to Maroon and McDavid. Hell maybe try Leon or Lucic up with that duo. Bottom line, take Eberle from 97 and place with 93.

They need to go to the net more and stay there. They have settled for outside shots and haven’t had enough from in close. 

Get more traffic in front. Make it harder on opposing goalies, and if the PP can get going again their offence should stay between 10-15th.

Shot quality matters more than the number of shots. Need guys at the net and second shots more consistently.

I think the shooting percentages will normalize. If the Oilers keep outshooting their opponents then eventually nature will take its course. Our brains try to rationalize these things by saying that the Oilers are probably taking lots of low percentage shots. I’d wager that’s overstated. Some players probably are, but not the bulk of the team. Goals will come if they keep up the pressure.

I would recommend drafting a couple more Connor McDavids. He’s an amazing player so if we just had more of him, things should be better, right?

But actually, I don’t know. Shoot better?

Get ugly, man. The Oilers haven’t been crashing the net to chase rebounds and garbage goals like they had been earlier in the year. While it’s all well and good to get a bunch of shots every night that won’t help you when they’re all taken from the outside and no one is there to cash in on the rebounds. 

I don’t think many opinions will have moved. Mine certainly hasn’t; I like Larsson a lot but think that long-term not having a real offensive driver on the second line (the gap between Hall/Lucic, in other words) is going to hurt more than the gap between Larsson/Jason Demers would have helped. But for the most part I’m content to wait and see whether that assertion is right or whether Peter Chiarelli’s calculation was correct.

It remains a massive overpay, but Peter Chiarelli surely knew that at the time of the deal. It is a bet —make the playoffs and people will forget—and from that pov we are still waiting for the answer.

Oilers needed to improve D so added Larsson. He has helped. They miss Hall’s ability to drive a line without playing with McDavid. For me, nothing has changed.

Just like it did when the trade was made. The Oilers overpaid for something they needed. Can’t assess a trade through less than 20 games.

It was awful in June and it’s still awful today. I’m not sure that can really be argued. Hall was leading the Devils forwards in ice time (and playing more than Larsson) and in scoring before he got hurt. Larsson is about 4th on the Oiler D in icetime per game and he hasn’t been the impact defender Chiarelli hoped he would be. I *like* Larsson and I’ll take the upgrade over Schultz every day of the week, but Edmonton lost that deal big time.

Honestly, I’m kind of annoyed at everybody right now. When we were winning, everyone was praising Chia for the trade. Now everyone’s throwing the trade back in his face. I’m still happy with the trade. Our defence is better, and I’m a lot more impressed with Larsson than I thought I was going to be. Do I miss Hall? Yes, but tough cookies.

Supply and demand. That’s all this trade was. Everyone from GMs to fans knew that the Oilers needed a right-handed defenseman and the price shot through the roof. I actually like Larsson more than I expected. I didn’t know he’s as physical as he is and I think that’s something that’s be lacking on the back end for a long time. You can see that Larsson could be great if he develops some more, but that’s still an if to me. Again, I repeat that I like Adam Larsson plenty. I just don’t think he was worth one of the best left wingers in the game to acquire. Don’t @ me.

Sometimes I read it, though I generally try to keep a more even keel rather than riding the highs and the lows the way so many fans do, just because I find it more helpful for my work. But I’m not going to criticize anyone for feeling these wins and losses strongly – that passion is what makes Edmonton such an exceptional fan base, and is the reason the Oilers are still around. It’s also the reason I have a job. The crazier trade proposals you’ll see are generally a side effect of that emotion which is so essential to being a fan.

I often read the comments section, it is a good way to get a read on what people are thinking. Oilers fans are a passionate bunch, nothing wrong with blowing off some steam at ON!

I do, but not every game. I hosted the post-game show on radio for the first six years of my career and it was great. The raw passion after a game is the best. Yes, often some will go off the deep end, but there are just as many who can make sensible comments. I prefer the comments now that people have to sign up and aren’t completely anonymous. The comments are mainly about on ice play not lame personal shots. An improvement for sure.

It is the epitome of reasoned thinking and common sense.

Lots of times the comment sections can get too toxic for me. I try to stick around for the first page or so, but there’s only so many times you can read about how the hours you dedicated to writing the article was a waste of time because Joe X hates Analytics/Pouliot/Critical Thought/Your Face anyway. Some people are really awesome, but for every funny comment there’s someone who didn’t even bother to read the article at all who’s just screaming for attention. That’s cool and all the power to them, but I can’t subject myself to that willingly.

Sometimes I do. Often after a loss, I’m angry at Twitter, the Oilers, and everybody. Looking at the wrap-up only escalates that anger so I usually try to avoid it. Maybe the next morning I’ll take a peek, but I have to give props to Baggedmilk for having to moderate them every night.

The comments section on this website swings the way the Oilers do. Since I write 95% of the wrap ups I’m always around to read those comments and there are definitely times when things get weird. When the Oilers are winning my fellow citizens are a happy lot. When they’re losing, and looking bad while they’re doing it… watch out.

As for how I react, I love that the Oilers get you guys fired up enough to come to the site and yell about it. Without you guys this site is nothing. Period. Sometimes I’ll jump in there and get into it with you guys, sometimes I watch from behind the curtain. Either way, I read the comments and it’s never boring to say the least.