Prophecies of an Anonymous Oilers Fan

Kent Wilson
April 05 2013 09:45AM

Centre ice-man

pic via Gary Blaney

 (I was sent this yesterday from an Oilers fan who wanted to remain nameless. It details, from experience, our suffering to come)

Flames fans, I come in peace to tell you in detail what awaits you in coming years. Not just tales of the agony of losing and repeat humiliations over the course of a season with only a single day in June to truly look forward to - you know that already. The smart ones among you have known the day of reckoning was set in motion, that pieces of the future were dealt for last, desperate gasps at a playoff spot. I also bring prophecy of what you do not yet know - the hopes, the fears, the over-analysis, the fretting about events out of not just your control but the team's. And, in some cases, explanations for what you consider inexplicable.

For starters, you have to wonder where along the rebuild schedule you may be. Edmonton may not have admitted to its rebuild until 2010, but it arguably started with the Gagner draft and continued with the selections of Eberle and Paajarvi in subsequent years. All three have taken their time developing and still have lots to learn. Gagner and Paajarvi were relatively easy picks, but we got lucky with Eberle at 22. How has your drafting been? You may not know for several years - at least six if you've followed Gagner's gradual improvements until his explosion this year. Is Baertschi your Eberle? Or is he the Riley Nash in your system? The Jankowski pick could be a bust like Jesse Niinimaaki or a successful reach.

Prophecy One: You know not the name of thy savior

Most first overalls are the best players in their draft, especially since the mid-2000s and the salary cap, when teams realized they couldn't just outbid for the best players in free agency with no consequences. Ovechkin, Crosby, Kane, Stamkos, Tavares, and Hall. Those second overalls aren't that bad, either - Malkin, Doughty and Seguin make good consolation prizes. They're not the top talent as often though, and while you may get the best player in the draft with any pick, the odds steeply decrease with each step down within the top 5, and then fall off a cliff after that.

Prophecy Two: The gods are whimsical with their cruelty, and April 29th shall precipitate a hasty retreat of thine manly bits

So when that draft day lottery comes, your guts are going to be rumbling and that fog of beer that was hitting you so hard an hour ago suddenly clears up. You will lose your appetite for wings as the NHL taunts you, on live TV, with a mockery, a hideous and downright evil spectacle in which the fate of your team is being decided by a bunch of bouncing balls.

Yet you continue to stare, and then it comes - the Gutshot. You were last, you suffered most, you endured the most humiliation and defeats, drinking $10 beer after $10 beer to choke the pain down. But at 5th overall, the expected Senators weren't there. That can only mean one thing - they won, they're moving up from 5th to 1st. You lose, you draft second. Your scouts can't pick the best player, so the GM picks for need. A wasted year! You won James van Riemsdyk instead of Patrick Kane, Victor Hedman instead of John Tavares. Oh no, what if - WHAT IF ... oh no ... you know, you just *know* those damn Avs are going to get the first overall. Another team in your division stacking up on primo talent!

... but wait! Drafting fourth are the Devils, instead of drafting eighth! They moved up from eighth to fourth in the lottery, so you get to keep the pick - well, not quite. You see, the Oilers lost in 2011 lottery, and the fans watched that happen. The bar went dead quiet once everyone realized what happened with the Senators being bumped.

Statistically, after the Oilers, the second-last team had the best odds of winning, then the third-last, and fourth-last, fifth-last... and any of them could win the first overall. But back then, teams drafting 6th or higher could move up only 5 spots. For you guys, if another team wins the lottery - any team - they get the first overall. This works for you as well, but by being down so low in the standings, you have more to lose under the system - not just losing first overall to potentially the 9th-worst team in the league, but being bumped from second to third and so on. Or hey, you know how you're cheering for us to fall short of the playoffs? Just imagine, you get your wish, we don't make The Show and then, just for kicks, Lady Luck... nah, it wouldn't happen, would it?

Enjoy April 29th.

Prophecy Three: Blameless is the Prophet, as is thine coach and stars, yet they shall suffer

Bob Hartley's only sin was signing on as coach this year. The Flames' prognosis from the hockey media community - and we mocked their predictions too - was 11th-14th in the West. Neither Bob Hartley, Brent Sutter, nor the Most Revered One, Scotty Bowman himself, could have done much to avert that fate. The only thing Curtis Glencross did wrong was be young, skilled, and affordable enough to keep. The only thing Mike Cammalleri did wrong was to be expensive enough, young enough, and not worth enough back in a trade to act as a veteran presence and a cap floor cushion.

Yes, I know it's difficult to believe judging by the Coyotes and Islanders, but teams do have to spend a minimum amount per season, and it's substantial - $44m. Dennis Wideman, Jiri Hudler and Roman Cervenka only committed the sins of greed and pride.

Despite all this, heaps of abuse will rain down upon them all, completely unwarranted on your stars and coach, and in amounts far too severe for the free agents who chose money over a good team, or chose to believe they are good enough to turn the TiFlamic around. They are not to blame for your woes in coming years. Ultimately, what you will hate them for is for not being good enough to carry the team, yet you will never consider that the team will no longer be built to win.

Above all, most of you will not appreciate the shelter that these overpaid or not-quite-good-enough star players will provide to your rookies and prospects. The Oilers were a hollow shell without "third liner $7m captain Horcoff" this year, and are a competitive team with him. During the rebuild Horcoff provided shelter for both Hall (centering his line) and Nuge (by taking on the top competition and letting Nuge play second-tier opponents.)

Horcoff was the goat, the shield against the flame that was the fan's scorn that might have turned on Gagner or other prospects. Horcoff, Hemsky, and to a lesser extent Penner and Whitney weren't the bums who couldn't win, they were the shelter in the storm for the growing youth movement. After the collapse in 2009-2010, the team was no longer built to win. The burden is unfair. Yet you shall deny and denounce your stars and veterans nevertheless.

Prophecy Four: The grass is greener on the wrong side of the railroad tracks

Your fanbase will split and argue pettily as never before. It will fragment and isolate into echo-chamber cells. "We're not big enough!", "This team sucks, might as well play the prospects more!", "We need veterans and depth!", "We need to tank more!", "If we lose any more, we'll develop a permanent losing culture like Florida, Atlanta, or the Islanders!"

The ideas will split and multiply and become like venomous, spitting hydras - you cut one yapping head down and two more appear - and all shall advocate their Golden Path to success, and they will keep their faith strong by repeating what they believe and reading things that support what they believe. They will point to Holmgren in Philadelphia and his quick rebuild a few years ago, or Brian Burke's somewhat surprising success in Toronto this year, or the remarkable turnaround of Montreal. There will be those who point North with envy in their hearts but the belief that ours was indeed the Golden Path. Yet others will pray at the altars of Bowman or Shero.

Yet ultimately all those arguments is pointless, because your path will be your path. The Gods of Odds laid their blessings upon the Oilers - to win our three lotteries in a row (ranking 1st, 1st, and 2nd in odds - and yes, you will soon too count standings in draft positions - like 1st, 2nd, 3rd...) - the Oilers had 48.2% chances to win in their first two years (25% + the combined 23.2% chance of the teams that couldn't win first overall) and an 18.8% chance to win last year. That's a 4.37% chance of winning the lottery all three years combined - just under 1 in 25. With the current odds, if the Flames finished last three years in a row, the odds of winning would be 1 in 64, or 1.56%.

Your path shall be unique. And not as lucky.

Prophecy Five: Thou art heretics, and thou shall burn and Fail in the same flames thou adorn thyselves with

Ultimately, the reason it has been revealed to me that you will fail is because your owner runs CNRL and thought it was a good idea to build a plant from parts made in one country by one people, send to be assembled by mostly by different temporary foreign wage depressor people from three different countries, in a fourth country, with the permission and encouragement of the former Calgarian mayor and premier*. That kind of mentality leads to parts of your plant burning down and trading Sven Baertschi or Mark Jankowski for picks and pucks the draft before they're in the Calder running.

Blue collar city Union Pride, Flamers.

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current FN contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#51 rubbertrout
April 05 2013, 01:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
suba steve wrote:

You're not wrong. Rebuild seems to be drawing THEM out.

I hope you aren't referring to me. I'm happy to have reasonable discussion with people and enjoy some spirited debate. I don't like it when it devolves into name calling and don't engage in that.

If by "THEM" you are referring to fans of other teams take a look at the gems put out by Jeff Lebowski (an apparent flames fan)

Comment #27 "Moron" "borderline retarded"

#28 "dick"

#30 "retarded glue sniffer"

I'm not sure why people can't disagree with one another and not devolve into name calling.

Avatar
#52 Derzie
April 05 2013, 01:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Great article. You speak the truth my hillbilly brother.

Avatar
#53 rubbertrout
April 05 2013, 01:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
suba steve wrote:

"You don't use first round picks on a project with potential. I guess that is unless you have traded all of your other picks away. They could have traded down easily if they really wanted him."

Why don't you go back and read your own words. Then look at what happened on the day the Flames made that pick.

Janko was listed as an early 2nd rounder by The Hockey News, having climbed from much lower on their rankings earlier in the year. It is not unusual at all for such a prospect to be selected in the later part of round one. He may be the second coming of Joe Nieuwendyk or he could be the next Scott Allison (Oilers 17th overall, 1990). That's how the draft works, every year. Enjoy the weekend.

My point was that if Janko was the guy they wanted and projected as an early second rounder they probably could have traded down a few more spots, still got the guy they wanted and got another asset. That's all.

The pick was a surprise to most. Most of the pundits thought he would have gone later. He may well turn out to be something in a few years. There are always diamonds in the rough. Again, I'm not the one touting Feaster as some kind of draft superstar. I know you aren't either but that's where my initial comment comes from.

Enjoy the weekend too!

Avatar
#54 rubbertrout
April 05 2013, 01:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
SmellOfVictory wrote:

Not to be a website hipster, but the discussion devolved because the userbase grew. It used to be a very niche kind of community that a very specific type of person frequented, and it has since expanded; entirely expected, I'd say.

Still makes you kind of wish for the halcyon days of yore though?

Avatar
#55 the-wolf
April 05 2013, 01:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Captain Ron wrote:

The wolf in sheeps clothing?

HAR! No, not me Cap. I'd stand behind that comment!

Avatar
#56 suba steve
April 05 2013, 01:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@rubbertrout

Nope, not referring to you RT. Have seen your posts often enough to know you are not an A-hole (not any more often then I am, at least). I lived in EDM for school and loved it, and Oil fans are just good fans. But as you said, some bad apples in every bag.

Poop.

Oops, that just slipped out.

Avatar
#57 rubbertrout
April 05 2013, 01:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@suba steve

Double poop.

Oops.

Maybe it is just because I live in Calgary and that is why I'm seen as moderate.

Avatar
#58 Derzie
April 05 2013, 01:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
MC Hockey wrote:

I second the above thoughts, which were very well put in the biblical-like prose of the original author, nice job. Oh, and on a less "prosey" note, my friend in California who works on a certain very well-known prime-time cartoon TV show has also chimed in with a note from one of his characters, which succinctly said "HA HA Oilers". Bonus points if you name that character!

Nelson Muntz

Avatar
#59 Kevin R
April 05 2013, 01:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
rubbertrout wrote:

My point was that if Janko was the guy they wanted and projected as an early second rounder they probably could have traded down a few more spots, still got the guy they wanted and got another asset. That's all.

The pick was a surprise to most. Most of the pundits thought he would have gone later. He may well turn out to be something in a few years. There are always diamonds in the rough. Again, I'm not the one touting Feaster as some kind of draft superstar. I know you aren't either but that's where my initial comment comes from.

Enjoy the weekend too!

Well, like you are saying that its too early to call Feaster a drafting guru, it's also too early to diss the picks he's made. Jankowski was a very debatable step out, wont argue, but he also scored that 2nd of which a dman by the name of Seiloff was available, who also played on the USA world jr team last December. So Janko & Seiloff I dont think warrants some of the criticism you are directing here. In 2 years, maybe it will. Janko has been projected to be a 1st rounder this year had he slipped thru last years draft. When you are drafting from 14th to 22nd, it the ole throw the dart & hope you hit. Its top 10 picks that cant be screwed up or speculated with. Your expert analysis on Gaudreau can be almost misconstrued as trolling when you say he will very unlikely make the NHL due to size. He did seem to fair pretty darn good at the world jr's in December playing against big future NHL stars in the same age group. His size is no more of a deterent than that of Eberle or Nugent Hopkins. Kids with the great skills & huge hockey IQ on the ice have a very good chance of adapting to the NHL game. I put Eberle in that category, his on ice IQ far exceeds Taylor Halls & I think Eberle is going to have a much healthier career than Hall. Nuge seems to have contracted the Hemsky virus of fragility. JMO.

Avatar
#60 Purple Hazze
April 05 2013, 02:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@rubbertrout

When The Hockey News did a re-draft of the 2012 draft last month they had Jankowski rated at 25 ... we grabbed him at 23 along with picking up Sieloff in trading down... not a bad move in my opinion.

Avatar
#61 rubbertrout
April 05 2013, 02:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kevin R wrote:

Well, like you are saying that its too early to call Feaster a drafting guru, it's also too early to diss the picks he's made. Jankowski was a very debatable step out, wont argue, but he also scored that 2nd of which a dman by the name of Seiloff was available, who also played on the USA world jr team last December. So Janko & Seiloff I dont think warrants some of the criticism you are directing here. In 2 years, maybe it will. Janko has been projected to be a 1st rounder this year had he slipped thru last years draft. When you are drafting from 14th to 22nd, it the ole throw the dart & hope you hit. Its top 10 picks that cant be screwed up or speculated with. Your expert analysis on Gaudreau can be almost misconstrued as trolling when you say he will very unlikely make the NHL due to size. He did seem to fair pretty darn good at the world jr's in December playing against big future NHL stars in the same age group. His size is no more of a deterent than that of Eberle or Nugent Hopkins. Kids with the great skills & huge hockey IQ on the ice have a very good chance of adapting to the NHL game. I put Eberle in that category, his on ice IQ far exceeds Taylor Halls & I think Eberle is going to have a much healthier career than Hall. Nuge seems to have contracted the Hemsky virus of fragility. JMO.

Fair enough. Not intending to be trolling but I do think that his size will be an issue for him.

I just think of Gaudreau of someone more along the lines of Brandon Kozen. He is a guy that lit up the WHL and played very well at the World Jr.s and hasn't had much of a shot at the show yet. Granted he is in the Kings system which has an impact on his ability to move up but nobody has been trying to pry him away from them either.

Kozen's point production against men in the AHL has been less than overwhelming. If you are a little guy you really need to be able to bring it offensively because it is pretty tough to be a shut-down defender or play a great two way game. Kozen was a beast in the WHL but can't seem to bring it in the AHL. I think Johnny will have the same problem.

Kozen is 5'9" and 162 lbs

Gaudreau is 5'6" and 150 lbs

Gaudreau is younger and can fill out a bit but he isn't going to grow that much. For World Junior comparisons, Kozen scored 7 points in 6 games and Gaudreau scored 9 in 7.

Hockey prospects rates Gaureau as a "D" for probabilities of success. See here.

Nuge is 6'1" and 185 lbs

Eberle is 5'11" and 184 lbs.

Neither of them are real comparables.

Avatar
#62 rubbertrout
April 05 2013, 02:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kevin R

Also I've acknowledged that the picks may turn out OK. I was replying to the initial notion that he was really good at drafting. The picks might turn out. I won't hold my breath but they might.

Avatar
#63 DieHard
April 05 2013, 02:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kevin R wrote:

Well, like you are saying that its too early to call Feaster a drafting guru, it's also too early to diss the picks he's made. Jankowski was a very debatable step out, wont argue, but he also scored that 2nd of which a dman by the name of Seiloff was available, who also played on the USA world jr team last December. So Janko & Seiloff I dont think warrants some of the criticism you are directing here. In 2 years, maybe it will. Janko has been projected to be a 1st rounder this year had he slipped thru last years draft. When you are drafting from 14th to 22nd, it the ole throw the dart & hope you hit. Its top 10 picks that cant be screwed up or speculated with. Your expert analysis on Gaudreau can be almost misconstrued as trolling when you say he will very unlikely make the NHL due to size. He did seem to fair pretty darn good at the world jr's in December playing against big future NHL stars in the same age group. His size is no more of a deterent than that of Eberle or Nugent Hopkins. Kids with the great skills & huge hockey IQ on the ice have a very good chance of adapting to the NHL game. I put Eberle in that category, his on ice IQ far exceeds Taylor Halls & I think Eberle is going to have a much healthier career than Hall. Nuge seems to have contracted the Hemsky virus of fragility. JMO.

Eberle is 5' 11"; RNH is 6" 1"; Gaudreau is 5' 6".

There are some quality small players but are far and few between. Really do wish him luck though.

Avatar
#64 piscera.infada
April 05 2013, 02:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
rubbertrout wrote:

My point was that if Janko was the guy they wanted and projected as an early second rounder they probably could have traded down a few more spots, still got the guy they wanted and got another asset. That's all.

The pick was a surprise to most. Most of the pundits thought he would have gone later. He may well turn out to be something in a few years. There are always diamonds in the rough. Again, I'm not the one touting Feaster as some kind of draft superstar. I know you aren't either but that's where my initial comment comes from.

Enjoy the weekend too!

Am I smoking crack again, or did the flames not trade back a couple spots?

I'm pretty sure that happened.

Avatar
#65 rubbertrout
April 05 2013, 02:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
piscera.infada wrote:

Am I smoking crack again, or did the flames not trade back a couple spots?

I'm pretty sure that happened.

They did. They could have traded down farther if that was they guy they wanted IMO.

Avatar
#66 SmellOfVictory
April 05 2013, 02:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
rubbertrout wrote:

They did. They could have traded down farther if that was they guy they wanted IMO.

It's been discussed ad nauseum amongst Flames fans that there were a couple of teams who would have taken Jankowski in the first round if Calgary hadn't; Phx allegedly tried to swap picks with Calgary in order to grab him. I don't think they could have dropped any lower.

And in terms of projects, everyone in the bottom half of the first round last season was a project, essentially. The only forward worth looking at outside of Jankowski was Teravainen, and he's quite small (certainly no guarantee for the NHL), and then there were Ceci and Maatta on the back end, who are decent but not great d prospects.

Avatar
#67 suba steve
April 05 2013, 02:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
rubbertrout wrote:

They did. They could have traded down farther if that was they guy they wanted IMO.

How do you know that? Flames had a different opinion on that and they were where? Oh yeah, they were in PITT at the draft. Incidentally, they also went to Quebec and watched the kid play. If you want to stay on the non A-hole list you gotta admit:

1. the Flames did indeed trade down and got an extra asset as well as Janko at #21. That DID happen. (guess you did finally admit that one)

2. Had they traded down lower, they MAY have missed the chance to draft their player.

Avatar
#68 RexLibris
April 05 2013, 02:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Captain Ron wrote:

Clearly it must have been one of the two literates, Rex or Wayne (barely literate) from up there that wrote this bit of mockery.

Nope. I may use a pseudonym, but I'd surely put my name on this.

Avatar
#69 RexLibris
April 05 2013, 03:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

With regards to this rebuild and the common belief that Oilers fans, all Oilers fans that is, are telling the Flames that they just need to do it the same way but can't because their GM is a dottering fool and they couldn't hit a prospect at the draft if they were the only team picking (gasp for air)...

That is not necessarily the case.

Many of us have mentioned over and over and over again that each rebuild is different, and carried forth by its own set of historical, cultural, and financial circumstances. Two of the success stories won the draft lottery to take phenomenal players in Crosby and Kane. Another recent one spent the better part of a decade slowly, gradually building up players.

Meanwhile, the Oilers have taken what fate gave them, applied a general development strategy and relied heavily on drafting rather than trades. Heaven knows if this thing will work, but good god you know it'll be a whole lot better than what they started out with.

Avatar
#70 rubbertrout
April 05 2013, 03:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@suba steve

@ SmellOfVictory

It is possible. I acknowledge that. I don't know that they could have traded down more to get him. Obviously this is just my opinion like it is yours that Janko was coveted by others and it wasn't that much of a stretch to pick him where he was picked. They did move down. They might have missed out on him if they didn't take him. I don't think so but I can acknowledge the possibility.

Apparently some of the pundits who were following the draft thought the same thing as I did as the pick was considered to be by many a little bit out of nowhere.

I don't really think that there was the kind of demand for him that you suggest. You guys say there was. Obviously we disagree on this.

Keep in mind, like I have been saying all through this thread, I'm responding to the comment that someone made suggesting that Feaster is a "good" drafter. I'm not saying he's terrible at drafting (although I do think he is a terrible GM and these picks may well turn out to be terrible).

His picks may work out. I've been saying that there isn't sufficient evidence to support the theory that he's "good". People that are saying that Jankowski, Gaudreau etc. are evidence of him being "good" at the draft are relying on a bit of smoke and mirrors at this point.

Avatar
#71 piscera.infada
April 05 2013, 03:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
DieHard wrote:

Eberle is 5' 11"; RNH is 6" 1"; Gaudreau is 5' 6".

There are some quality small players but are far and few between. Really do wish him luck though.

Patrick Kane 5'10", 181 lbs. It can be done.

I understand 5'7" (Gaudreau) isn't quite 5'10", but the kid can really play. And his two more years in college will help that - physically, and (more important) mentally.

Avatar
#72 piscera.infada
April 05 2013, 04:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Moosemess wrote:

Take your shots while you still can Flames fans.

These 8-2 drubbings are about to become the norm for your sad sack franchise for the next 5 years or so, and the most important score remains 5 Cups to 1.

The best athlete who's ever played in Calgary is a midget QB who couldn't cut it in the NFL. The best athlete who's ever played in Edmonton is the greatest hockey player who ever lived!

And do you know what people say they like about Calgary most? It's close to the mountains. The best thing about your city is it's fairly close to a place people actually want to go.

Thank you for that enlightening comment.

Avatar
#73 Captain Ron
April 05 2013, 04:05PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
RexLibris wrote:

Nope. I may use a pseudonym, but I'd surely put my name on this.

Wow their might be three guys up there now with reading and writing skills! ;) ;)

See how influential you have been!!!

Avatar
#74 Vintage Flame
April 05 2013, 04:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Moosemess

These 8-2 drubbings are about to become the norm for your sad sack franchise for the next 5 years or so,

Hmmm.. You seem pretty sure of your self Mooseknuckle errr mess. Part of the problem is that you Oil fans seem to think this is some mirror image situation, that because the oil sucked for almost a decade, that so will Calgary. Not sure why you think that is a given.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but let's not put the carriage before the horse just yet. I'll reserve judgement till after the off-season.

and the most important score remains 5 Cups to 1.

This is another thing that I don't know why you guys think you can hold this over our heads. It's not like the Oilers beat the Flames for those five Cups. Congrats anyways but when you look at the big picture who cares. Montreal has 24 Cups dude. That's bragging rights.

Avatar
#75 rubbertrout
April 05 2013, 04:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Vintage Flame

First of all I agree the 5-1 is kind of a useless stat. I prefer to count playoff series won from 2006 onwards.

24 since 1927 versus 5 since 1979. We had to beat more teams to win most of ours.

The "decade" we sucked was closer to 5 years. We were just outside the playoffs in 2007. Then we fell off the face of the earth. This year has been not too bad.

The fact that Edwards keeps saying the goal is to make the playoffs next year is what should concern Flames fans. That type of mentality is what put the Oil into its rebuild in the first place before they even knew it.

I actually want Calgary to be better. It would be cool for both teams to be relevant at the same time.

Avatar
#76 Jonathan Happy
April 05 2013, 04:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Excellently written. I agree with alot of it even though it scares me. But at the same time, I've wanted the Flames to be proactive, and although I don't think this major sell off fits that bill 100%, its better than nothing. I'll embrace the rebuild and I'll embrace the hope, so even though hearing how dark the abyss looks is worriesome, it can't be too much worse than the perpetual mediocrity and teasing that we've come to expect from the current team. Go Flames.

Avatar
#77 Captain Ron
April 05 2013, 05:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
rubbertrout wrote:

First of all I agree the 5-1 is kind of a useless stat. I prefer to count playoff series won from 2006 onwards.

24 since 1927 versus 5 since 1979. We had to beat more teams to win most of ours.

The "decade" we sucked was closer to 5 years. We were just outside the playoffs in 2007. Then we fell off the face of the earth. This year has been not too bad.

The fact that Edwards keeps saying the goal is to make the playoffs next year is what should concern Flames fans. That type of mentality is what put the Oil into its rebuild in the first place before they even knew it.

I actually want Calgary to be better. It would be cool for both teams to be relevant at the same time.

I also want to see both teams become better as in a LOT better and the sooner the better.

This battle of Alberta has become a pillow fight.

I want some of that action like what we have seen between Pitt and Philly. The Hawks and Canucks is another example.

The game between the Hawks and Blues last night was decent too for a regular season tilt.

Games between the two Alberta teams the last while have been far from battles. Bring on the seven game series with a few slugfests in the mix and that go the distance in overtime to decide the series. That's what I want to see.

Avatar
#78 Captain Ron
April 05 2013, 08:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
the-wolf wrote:

HAR! No, not me Cap. I'd stand behind that comment!

Thought you might be trying to sneak around in disguise!

Avatar
#79 Kevin R
April 06 2013, 11:41AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
stretch14 wrote:

Yes, Montreal does have bragging rights....over Toronto. We're not comparing cups with them; we're comparing them to our arch-rival (you sad sacks). Not to mention MTL got the majority of their Cups competing in a league with only 5 other teams. 1/6 odds to win the cup each year, not bad. Since the Oilers/flames have entered the league no other team has more Stanley Cups or SCF appearances than the Oilers. Plain and simple.

1984: Oilers defeat flames in 2nd round en route to 1st Stanley Cup

1985: Flames lose in 1st round vs Jets. Oilers sweep Jets. Back-to-back Cups

1987: Flames lose in 1st round vs Jets. Oilers sweep Jets. 3rd Stanley Cup in 4 years

1988: Oilers sweep flames in 2nd round. Back-to-back Cups...AGAIN! 4th Stanley Cup in 5 years

1990: Flames lose in 1st round vs. Kings. Oilers sweep Kings. 5th cup in 7 years

So we did indeed beat you for 2/5 of those cups. As for the other 3 well unfortunately you guys weren't good enough to make it out of the 1st round but we did make quick work of the teams that knocked you out.

Do you still wear the same underwear you did back then? Probably do, with the little Gretsky face on the front. Get in the now, the 80's has nothing to do with the games being played today & the ones that will be played.

Comments are closed for this article.