Passing the Buck - The Edmonton Oilers rebuild
Posted 8:41 AM ET | Comments 2
When you talk about the Oilers these days, the phrase that comes to mind is 'passing the buck'. In essence, it means shuffling the onus, the responsibility or in some cases the blame off to some other party. In the context of the Oilers, it means this:
The team plays poorly. Who to blame? Well, Devan Dubnyk comes to mind - his sv % is abnormally low - unnacceptably low - and even average goaltending wouldn't have us bleeding wins so fiercely. That being said, team defense has not done him a lot of help. Though on paper, it would appear that our dcore and bottom 6 have improved from last year, it's not translating on the ice. If you pay attention to the Oilogosphere, or more broadly the 140-character truth bombs of Travis Yost or Corey Pronman, it's become the increasingly popular opinion that while Dubnyk is off his game, he's being hung out to dry. The team is bleeding chances; indeed, this is where the advanced stats guys earn their reputation. Even though the ShotsAgainst/G for the oilers have actually decreased below last year's tally, the Shot Attempts Against are positively dismal. And even the 'watch the game, nerds!' crowd has probably been in part converted to the partial Dubnyk exoneration after watching the prime slot chances, and juicy doorstep opportunities that Tampa Bay, Philadelphia and Chicago have enjoyed over the last three games.
But are we really blaming this collection of players? As many have commented about the Yakupov debacle, he's not the only one turning over pucks, losing the plot on defense, allowing players a free ride on the half-boards or in front of the net. If 1-2 players are wrong, it's the players, if it's the whole team, is it the coach?
But how could it possibly be the coach? To quote the great Mugatu, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! Since MacT was relieved of his coaching duties, this team has posted an impressive statistic: we've had 4 coaches in 313 games. Even factoring in MacT, veterans like Hemsky, Gagner and the now-departed Smid have had 5 coaches in 6 years. Every pro system is going to have its drawbacks, and though the commonalities between some of these systems is becoming grating ('capitilizing on team speed' seems to always mean wingers bailing out of the Dzone early, doesn't it?) the central message here is that if a group of players can't play any of 5 different systems well, we might have the core with the lowest hockey I.Q. in NHL history. But the remarkable thing there is that this team includes the purportedly poised eggheads of Nuge, Gagner, Petry, Nick Schultz and Andrew Ference. So this is getting confusing. Where are we? Ah yes: If it's 1-2 players, it's the players; if it's the whole team, it's the coach, UNLESS it's been 5 coaches, then it's the players. Unless it's the management.
The seeming end of the line for the Oilers buck-passing express is that management has failed to put a team that COULD win on the ice, and we've suffered for it. Indeed, many will blame the now-canned Tambellini, the constant over the lean years, or the shadowy, ring-clad Kevin Lowe, the constant over the lean year plus whatever you want to call this debacle. However, that too seems to be in error. Consider the following: it's widely accepted that simply 'converting' some of our extreme forward depth into defensive or goaltending depth would allow us to make that next step. That's never been done, and that's why we toil. But what's being described there is not a step, it's a leap. So fans that widely agree that the team is a mere move away from real progress only to see us in the absolute basement (as opposed to say, perennial 10th place, mediocre finishes or even early playoff exits) implicitly acknowledge that the players we have aren't playing to their potential. We aren't the team that consistently scores 5 goals and allows 6 as the narrative indicates: we're the team that often has our dcore outplay our forwards, and sometimes even has guys like Dubnyk bailing out a team that can't put more than a goal in the net. We consider the managerial stagnancy unacceptable, but we do so in a way that implicitly gives our core players a free pass.
Am I suggesting that fans are actually to blame? No, for if you'd notice, that brings us practically full circle. Easy move to say we'd be happier with our team if they'd seem to show improvement. This is the point at which any Oilers fan is exhausted: we've tried to find the core reason for the lack of success, but what we've really found is an intelligible reason to blame every cog in the machine. And so has each cog found a way to pass the buck onto the other.
Indeed, you can't talk about that phrase without talking about Harry Truman, who famously stated 'the buck stops here'. What he meant was that whatever the cause, he would show responsibility for the problems and address them head-on.
However, on a hockey team, we don't have the luxury of a single maverick grabbing the buck by the points and steering the team in the right direction. Moves are just moves. Every coach fired implicitly excuses the players for the team's play and puts them behind the 8-ball to get comfortable with the next system. Every new guy brought in implicitly strong-arms the narrative that where once we were broken, now we'll run smoothly.
For any history buff, my use of Harry Truman is somewhat ironic. As a 1952 biography writes: "after seven years of Truman's hectic, even furious, activity the nation seemed to be about on the same general spot as when he first came to office ... Nowhere in the whole Truman record can one point to a single, decisive break-through ... All his skills and energies—and he was among our hardest-working Presidents—were directed to standing still". All the same, the sentiment rings true: there's no in-roads to be made from in-fighting. The idea that the buck doesn't stop with each and every cog is, at this point, 'passing the buck'. That's what needs to change.
The team plays poorly. Who to blame? Well, Devan Dubnyk comes to mind - his sv % is abnormally low - unnacceptably low - and even average goaltending wouldn't have us bleeding wins so fiercely. That being said, team defense has not done him a lot of help. Though on paper, it would appear that our dcore and bottom 6 have improved from last year, it's not translating on the ice. If you pay attention to the Oilogosphere, or more broadly the 140-character truth bombs of Travis Yost or Corey Pronman, it's become the increasingly popular opinion that while Dubnyk is off his game, he's being hung out to dry. The team is bleeding chances; indeed, this is where the advanced stats guys earn their reputation. Even though the ShotsAgainst/G for the oilers have actually decreased below last year's tally, the Shot Attempts Against are positively dismal. And even the 'watch the game, nerds!' crowd has probably been in part converted to the partial Dubnyk exoneration after watching the prime slot chances, and juicy doorstep opportunities that Tampa Bay, Philadelphia and Chicago have enjoyed over the last three games.
But are we really blaming this collection of players? As many have commented about the Yakupov debacle, he's not the only one turning over pucks, losing the plot on defense, allowing players a free ride on the half-boards or in front of the net. If 1-2 players are wrong, it's the players, if it's the whole team, is it the coach?
But how could it possibly be the coach? To quote the great Mugatu, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! Since MacT was relieved of his coaching duties, this team has posted an impressive statistic: we've had 4 coaches in 313 games. Even factoring in MacT, veterans like Hemsky, Gagner and the now-departed Smid have had 5 coaches in 6 years. Every pro system is going to have its drawbacks, and though the commonalities between some of these systems is becoming grating ('capitilizing on team speed' seems to always mean wingers bailing out of the Dzone early, doesn't it?) the central message here is that if a group of players can't play any of 5 different systems well, we might have the core with the lowest hockey I.Q. in NHL history. But the remarkable thing there is that this team includes the purportedly poised eggheads of Nuge, Gagner, Petry, Nick Schultz and Andrew Ference. So this is getting confusing. Where are we? Ah yes: If it's 1-2 players, it's the players; if it's the whole team, it's the coach, UNLESS it's been 5 coaches, then it's the players. Unless it's the management.
The seeming end of the line for the Oilers buck-passing express is that management has failed to put a team that COULD win on the ice, and we've suffered for it. Indeed, many will blame the now-canned Tambellini, the constant over the lean years, or the shadowy, ring-clad Kevin Lowe, the constant over the lean year plus whatever you want to call this debacle. However, that too seems to be in error. Consider the following: it's widely accepted that simply 'converting' some of our extreme forward depth into defensive or goaltending depth would allow us to make that next step. That's never been done, and that's why we toil. But what's being described there is not a step, it's a leap. So fans that widely agree that the team is a mere move away from real progress only to see us in the absolute basement (as opposed to say, perennial 10th place, mediocre finishes or even early playoff exits) implicitly acknowledge that the players we have aren't playing to their potential. We aren't the team that consistently scores 5 goals and allows 6 as the narrative indicates: we're the team that often has our dcore outplay our forwards, and sometimes even has guys like Dubnyk bailing out a team that can't put more than a goal in the net. We consider the managerial stagnancy unacceptable, but we do so in a way that implicitly gives our core players a free pass.
Am I suggesting that fans are actually to blame? No, for if you'd notice, that brings us practically full circle. Easy move to say we'd be happier with our team if they'd seem to show improvement. This is the point at which any Oilers fan is exhausted: we've tried to find the core reason for the lack of success, but what we've really found is an intelligible reason to blame every cog in the machine. And so has each cog found a way to pass the buck onto the other.
Indeed, you can't talk about that phrase without talking about Harry Truman, who famously stated 'the buck stops here'. What he meant was that whatever the cause, he would show responsibility for the problems and address them head-on.
However, on a hockey team, we don't have the luxury of a single maverick grabbing the buck by the points and steering the team in the right direction. Moves are just moves. Every coach fired implicitly excuses the players for the team's play and puts them behind the 8-ball to get comfortable with the next system. Every new guy brought in implicitly strong-arms the narrative that where once we were broken, now we'll run smoothly.
For any history buff, my use of Harry Truman is somewhat ironic. As a 1952 biography writes: "after seven years of Truman's hectic, even furious, activity the nation seemed to be about on the same general spot as when he first came to office ... Nowhere in the whole Truman record can one point to a single, decisive break-through ... All his skills and energies—and he was among our hardest-working Presidents—were directed to standing still". All the same, the sentiment rings true: there's no in-roads to be made from in-fighting. The idea that the buck doesn't stop with each and every cog is, at this point, 'passing the buck'. That's what needs to change.
Great blog Morris... though it makes me sad
Well done. Very well written.