Mike's Blawg

My wife is still hoping for and expecting Oilers wins. I won't go into my own hopes, but I generally expect the Oil to wind up on the wrong side of the score, but at least the games are generally entertaining, just so long as you don't like good hockey from your team. That said, the Oilers played a decent half-game last night, but seemed to lose the plot in the second period as the Flames asserted themselves. It was obvious both teams were tired, and in the third, it seemed obvious that the Oilers were exhausted. The compressed schedule is taking its toll, and as far as I'm concerned, NHL players have no place at the Olympics. I'll cut that rant off there though, as this is supposed to be about the last Battle of Alberta for the 2000s. So, on with the scores! As a reminder, my rubric is here. And a reminder that grades don't take

Smid, 6: Ladi was pointless, but that's not what he's out there for. Only one hit, but that was 10% of his team's output so hey. He made a few sterling defensive plays, including a goal-line save, and played like the shutdown dman he's becoming, bending but not breaking (to steal a phrase from Quinn) against the onslaught later in the game. 23:10 of fairly good hockey is a good game.

Horcoff, 6: His line looked decent for the first half of the game, and Horc himself was fairly strong defensively, and his goal nearly sparked a comeback and was a result of good forechecking sense on his part. But his power play time was non-productive and his faceoffs weren't his usual +50%.

Nilsson, 5: The top line was buzzing as much as any Oilers unit could be said to have been buzzing, and Nilsson was a contributor, not an anchor. His strong play led to the Oilers goal, and he kept the offensive zone giveaways to a minimum. But ultimately he needs to be more productive, and when you lead the team in PP time on an 0-fer special teams, you lose a point.

Cogliano, 4: He wound up with 16:06 of ice, and wasn't on the ice for a GA, and he was as physical as anybody with 2 credited hits and some snarly play, but. His line didn't produce much bang offensively, Denis King hasn't posted any scoring chances yet but I don't recall his line doing a lot. They were bottled up for extended periods even early in the game, and that's just not on. He had a 2 on 1 with Moreau about midway through the second period and he just plain fumbled the pass and didn't get a shot away.

Potulny, 4: Bottled up nearly every time they were on the ice, on the ice for the GA, not the ex-collegian's best game as an Oiler. At least he got a shot away.

Moreau, 5: TheCaptain didn't take any penalties, but he also had no hits. 3 shots, although I don't think any of them scared anybody, and 2 blocked. On the ice for the PPG against, but I don't think he made any mistakes on the sequence. Overall, a non-eventful game for a player who needs to make things happen to be effective. I'd give him a 4, but 3 shots was at least more than any other Oilers forward had. There was one play in the second behind the Calgary net that I didn't like at all; he had the puck on his stick and gave it right to the Calgary defender trying to return a pass.

O'Sullivan, 4: 1/3 of the least-effective line, he looked to be using Jarret Stoll's old supply of sticks up last night, he broke a stick on two one-timers in a row. At least he's not always on point on the power play any more, but his PP time was still not very effective, thanks in part to at least one of those broken sticks. Hard luck game for a hard luck forward.

Jacques, 3: I like his game when he's hitting. He wasn't doing a lot of that last night, he was credited with two hits but wasn't terribly physical otherwise. Whiffed cleanly on a nice pass from Moreau, he was a boat anchor after starting the night on Horcoff's line. He looked more like the player from 2007-08 than from October 2009.

Staios, 5: Physical play from #24 is what's needed, he saw some PP time too as Quinn tried to find the magic formula. Somehow he didn't limp off the ice all game, maybe his puck magnet broke. He played decently enough.

Penner, 5: Big guy was held pointless, but he was a catalyst on the forecheck and a factor on the backcheck. His presence helped to set up the goal. Still, he needs to produce on the power play, and one shot himself isn't enough for a guy with 18:13 of icetime.

Stone, 3: I didn't like his game at all last night. Neither did Quinn, apparently, since even Visnovsky played more than he did. He did have a shot and another blocked, blocked a shot himself, but physically he was pretty much a non-factor. He wasn't what was wrong with the team last night, but he did reflect the team's problem. I'm not sure if it was him or Potulny that should have had the Flames players forechecking on the sequence that led to the goal in the second period, but I think it was Stone. They weren't helped by Souray's bad play, but if Stone and Potulny had had their poop together earlier, maybe the puck doesn't go into the corner in the first place.

Grebeshkov, 5: An up and down game for the young Russian. He had some strong play coupled with issues clearing the zone. There was one sequence in the third where he gifted Glencross with the puck, but then made a great play to take the shot away. A major part of the ineffective power play, 3:11 of PP time put him near the team lead. (Souray had 3 more seconds.) Gobbled up 18:20 of even strength time though, and looked ok doing it.

Souray, 4: Sorry Shelley, 6 shots doesn't make up for the bad play that led to the 1-0 goal. He played not-badly for the most part, but poor PP and that bad play bumped him down. He also wore the goat horns for taking the type of penalty Moreau's usually excoriated for, and that goal was the game-winner.

Stortini, 4: Part of the generally ineffective Cogliano line at first, he spent a lot of time in his own end. His icetime was cut later in the game too, with the Oilers pressing for the tying goal and his line's inability to get any forecheck going. Stortini himself wasn't terrible, but he wasn't a contributor either.

Brule, 5: The most notable part of his game was his faceoff percentage matched his number. He and Horcoff had some good things going early in the game, but he seemed to peter out a bit near the end. He was probably one of the most energetic of the Oilers players though, and for that he gets a 5.

Visnovsky, no grade: He played almost half the first period, but left the ice and came back for a single shift in the second period. Post-game he said he twisted his ankle. One of his shifts was nearly 3 minutes long. Incredible. I liked his game up until he was hurt though, he can really move the puck.

Gilbert, 4: Another ES icetime-gobbler, he took over for Visnovsky. It's nice to see his defensive game progressing, but he did give the puck away to Nystrom to help kill the comeback late in the third. He'd have a 5 if it wasn't for 0 shots and 2:41 of PP time.

Gagner, 6: He was helping to make things happen all night, and his setup of Horcoff for the goal was a beauty, even if they were playing 6 on 5. 2 shots and his line was making things happen all night. He even didn't get taken to school as much in the faceoff circle as he usually did, going 4-5. Maybe a 7 except, you guessed it, power play.

Deslauriers, 8: It's hard to say which was his best period, the first where he made 15 saves, the second where he made 13 and was beaten due to no help at all from his teammates, or the third where he made 11 but kept the team in there. Neither goal was really his fault, although I wanted to break out the bungee cord a couple of times. He didn't deserve the L, but what can you do? Really good game by #38, he was far and away the best player on the ice not wearing red and black.

Joel Rosenblatt describes methodology used at Columbia for tracking abuse complaints as automatically as possible.

Normally I don't have a great deal of respect for Brian Burke. I think he's an arrogant blowhard, a know-it-all who exemplifies pretty much every single negative stereotype that might come to mind when somebody says "rich white American lawyer." I don't like his methods for building teams, I don't think he deserves quite the stellar reputation that he has, and I really don't like his attitude towards offer sheets and his otherwise-archaic business practises.

And then there's this. It's a bit of a long read, longer than is strictly necessary, but this is still an awesome story. It's theoretically a story about hockey men, but the sport serves only as a backdrop.

It's a story about a young man's suffering in silence and quitting an activity he loves because of his fear of what others involved in the sport would think of him. It's a story about a bluff, gruff, hard man's unconditional love for his son; it's a story about how far we've come as a society, yet how far we have yet to go.

Read it without at least blinking hard a few times. I dare you.

(Image cc licensed, source wikimedia. Edit 10 minutes after initial post to add a word.)

Man, I called Laddy Smid "Steady Smiddy" and still I forgot #24, The Macedonian Wonder, He With The Wondrous Beak, The Puck Magnet, Stevie Shot Stopper Staios, as a commenter pointed out. I can only claim a stupidity which I hope is temporary, plus I was posting from work in between doing other things.

Sorry Steve, you were wonderful last night.  Grade of 8, 2 assists including one of those "hey guys, watch this, slapshot from above the circle, through those guys, off Penner's ass, and then, hahah, this will kill you, the GOALIE KNOCKS IT IN!" types.  He was on the ice more than any Oiler not named Sam Gagner.  He was at his puck magnety-best with 5 blocks too.  No horrible mistakes in the offensive zone.  The commenter called him the best Oiler on the ice; I'd say it was close between him and Penner, but since I screwed up, I'll let Steve beat my man.  This time.

What is it with Quinn playing forwards more than defence anyway?  A few games ago Penner led all Oilers in ice time.

Image credit: Dave Sandford/Getty Images.  Please don't sue me.

Preamble: David Staples and I (and anybody else we can trick) are continuing our efforts at grading the Oilers on a per-game basis. For reference, the grading system.

Again the lack of a recording device is killing me. I've also missed watching any hockey at all for the last week, which is also killing me - gotta get some use from this Centre Ice package. But enough with the whining. Overall, it was a decent-enough effort. The forwards especially looked miniature - this is not to say I've swung the other way to "hitting HUR HUR WIN GAME" camp, but when 3/4 of your forward lineup looks like I would next to Dustin Penner, there's a problem. They were getting outmuscled in the offensive zone, the neutral zone, and the defensive zone. This team can't get Souray back quickly enough. Cheechoo in particular was a handful, but when isn't he? Chris Neil and Milan Michalek were also thorns in the Oilers' side all night.

Smid, 6: Steady Smiddy? A good, physical game from #5. No glaring gaffes, no brilliant plays, although he drove the puck deep at least once. Maybe he thought he should have been the 12th forward after all? At any rate, no complaints with his game, 19:31 of even-strength icetime. Only blight a -1 from being on the ice when Neil scored, but it's not clear he made a mistake there.

Cogliano, 6: Did somebody teach the boy how to take faceooffs, or is Chris Kelly that bad? 3 shots, his line played well enough, and he was using his speed well in the offensive zone. He's better now that he's not just using it to sprint. Got sprung on a beauty breakaway and missed the net, that's got to hurt. He also got absolutely mugged on a partial, even the Ottawa announcers were wondering how it wasn't a penalty. I liked one sequence in the Oilers zone where he got muscled off the puck by Michalek, then he backed off a bit and took a run, separating big #9 from the puck nicely. Cogs wheeled and cleared. Smart, smart play.

Potulny, 5: I was surprised to see his ice-time, 18:17. Two shots and a hit, two blocks, mediocre night on the faceoffs. I had him between Reddox and Pisani, and he looked ok there. They got bottled up a few times, but were decent on the forecheck when they got it deep. I think the other two players were the drivers on his line though.

Moreau, 6: But for the Neil goal, I'd have given him a 7. 5 shots and a goal that was the result of dogged offensive zone coverage and some nice hands. But. And there almost always seems to be a but with Thecaptainethanmoreau, n'est-ce pas? I understand not wanting somebody hanging around the front of the net, and it takes a lot of power to stop Chris Neil, but I really didn't like how he drove the big Senator onto JDD, and the fact that a goal was scored on the play as a result meant a docked mark. Sorry Ethan.

O'Sullivan, 7: gobbled up some icetime as a member of the best forward unit for the Oilers and got an assist on Penner's goal, making a decent pass back to Staios on the line. Made some things happen, but he looked a bit slow at times.

Penner, 8: best Oiler on the ice most of the time. He was a force down low in the offensive zone in particular, I had 5 pluses next to his number on my sheets. He was at his best in the third and OT periods, forechecking hard and making room for everybody else. His net presence made Leclaire's life difficult. No Trade Clause indeed.

Pisani, 6: part of a reasonably effective checking unit with Potulny and Reddox, at least at first (I didn't see if this line stayed together all game, but I think so). They got bottled up a few times, and while Fernie's reasonably big he still had trouble with the bigger forechecking Ottawa forwards. When he cycled with Reddox he looked pretty good.

Grebeshkov, 6: he wasn't outmuscled, at least. He made a couple of nice pinches and played a generally safe, effective game. He was on the ice for the Cheechoo goal, but there wasn't much he could have done about it; similarly he was on for Moreau's goal, but had little to do with it. Made a nice pass to Brule for his goal.

O'Marra, 4: Probably not the first NHL game many expected for this high first-round draft pick. He played well enough in limited ice time (6:00), although when he was on the ice his line seemed to get bottled up. He had just 33 seconds of icetime in the third period, and none in OT. That said, he didn't make any glaring errors either - I wouldn't scream if he's on the ice again tonight, but he's definitely the guy to come out for Hemsky if #83's back.

Strudwick, 5: not many threw him around, but he was slow. Two giveaways to lead the team's skaters isn't good though, not when your stock in trade is defensive dman. Reasonable effort though.

Stortini, 5: a bit of an up and down game. He looked slow out there, and while he was certainly willing, he wasn't able to line anybody up and didn't seem to be engaging many guys, although he certainly had Neil's attention for a while. Still, he was a pain in the rear on the forecheck and didn't give me any heart attacks.

Brule, 6: his goal was a bit of luck, but the fact he charged the net after taking the shot forced the goalie's hand, and sometimes that's what it takes to make your luck. 3 shots in 8:10 of icetime is pretty good, and he threw a couple of nice hits. I think he missed his check on Foligno on the 2-2 goal though, and guess who scored? A weak 6.

Visnovsky, 6: I had three plus signs and one minus sign against his name. He made some very nice defensive plays, using his stick well. On the minus side was his play on Cheechoo's goal. On the one hand, he didn't have a lot of choice; Staples noted the lack of puck support. On the other hand, you just can't get stripped of the puck in the corner like that. I'm thinking the better move would have been to reverse it up the right boards or try to ice it - maybe you get a too many men, maybe you put it on a Senator's stick anyway, but yeah. Still, not a terrible night, just not a great one for #71.

Gilbert, 5: Similar to Visnovsky, not Gilbert's best night. He was getting pushed off the puck in his own zone and wasn't creating a lot offensively either.

Reddox, 6: LW on the checking line, when he had the puck in Ottawa's end he made life miserable and was otherwise zooming around. 5 shots and 3 hits pretty much sums it up for the ginger from Whitby. I'd like to see more production, but considering his size and how outgunned everybody else not wearing #27 seemed, he did well.

Gagner, 6: part of some dangerous chances for the Oilers and centering the best line, he even didn't give too much away in the faceoff circle. No points, but not through lack of effort, and he was consistently good all night.

Comrie, 5: looked good on the half boards on the power play, but he needs to shoot more. He didn't see much time in the third, although I would be willing to bet that was because of illness, not a lack of faith from Quinn. He showed well in the first period especially.

Deslauriers, 3: ouch. My instructions after the first period would have been "stay in your crease." He made multiple mistakes handling the puck behind the net, and on one occasion dithered with it so long the Senators were unlucky not to score - I'm still not sure how he managed to get his stick in the way of the shot, but it didn't seem like it was from hustle. When he was in his crease he played ok, but he was giving out some massive rebounds. Funnily enough, I wouldn't say that any of the goals were his fault - Cheechoo's was a great shot, he had Neil and part of Moreau on him for Neil's, and Foligno's was just a tragicomedy. But if he keeps playing like that, the Oilers will be on the wrong side of 6-3 games more often than not. I don't grade on shootout plays, but he did reasonably well there.

At work I have a netbook running Ubuntu Netbook 9.04. At one point I changed my login password, and then wanted to set up our test WPA2 network on it. It prompted me for my keyring password, which was very frustrating since I apparently didn't know that.

If you change your login password on (at least) Netbook Remix edition, it won't change your keyring password:
see heah for screenshots etc.

GJ Ubuntu.

Lots of nasty comments directed my way over David Staples' place. I didn't give enough credit for gritty play and didn't use my eyes were the best of the comments. Herewith follows my rebuttal, because I have my own blawg to feed and I can't stand typing into comments boxes anyway.

I think I can boil down the thought behind the flames (har) to this: the Oilers played gritty, which is what they've been missing since 2006, why are you hating on them? They only lost because of a couple of fluke goals! If they keep it up this way, the wins are sure to come! Why so many 5s?

Let's get this straight: I don't give a good gosh darn how gritty the team plays if they lose. I don't give guys 7s just for hitting a lot; I give guys 7s for hitting a lot and scoring. Yeah, Calgary scored a couple flukes, and Edmonton scored a couple Kipper should have had as well, so it evened out. Yeah, JFJ was pounding guys all night, and Stone's hit on Giordiano was a beauty (even if the Flame did get away with some blatant interference to keep Stone out of the play), but...

The Oilers hit one hell of a lot in their playoff series vs the Stars in 98, 99, 2000, 2001. They got past the first round exactly once. The next game a team wins based on hit count will be the first. Good teams don't care about being hit, they just put the puck in the net. It's the mediocre teams who take solace in the sentiment of "well, we sure did outhit them!" Scoring goals wins games, nothing else. It might feel good viscerally to see Phaneuf get some of his own medicine back, but he doesn't care, his slapshot will be just as hard the next time, and when he scores that's all the validation he'll need.

Don't get me wrong, I'll be the happiest guy in the world if the Oilers go 81-0 the rest of the way playing exactly like they did Saturday night. I say if they keep it up, they're a .500 team and 8th in the West at best. At worst, they're going to be just good enough to not be a lottery team. Hooray.

The killer for me is their top offensive guy, Hemsky, was playing in a PvP role. That's exactly what he was sulking about last year, and he'll be annoyed again this year - and with good reason, it doesn't give the team the best chance it has to win. Except hanging him off Gagner's wing is probably no recipe for success either. Horc's the best centre for Hemsky, but he's the only guy who can hang with the big boys too. Play Hemsky with Comrie? Who would you want to see riding shotgun on that line? Last time I checked, Esa Tikkanen was retired.

Quinn's in a real pickle, much to the surprise of nobody. He needs a checking centre, and ideally, one he can trust to go out and take on the Iginlas and Sedins of the world. With all due respect to guys like Brule and Stone, they're not it. They just don't have the NHL experience yet. Until Quinn gets that piece - through trade, signings, or somebody surprising - this team is sunk, and it doesn't matter if JFJ pounds Phaneuf through the boards once, five times or five hundred times; it doesn't matter if Gagner one-punches Conroy to the ice or if Souray drills Moss right through the end boards. Physical play helps - it's essential to separate the man from the puck. But good players don't get scared, that's why they're good players in the first place. They'll just go about putting the puck in the net and thumbing their noses at the Oilers, sinking from one too many holes in the lineup.

(Edited 0045h EST: slight wording change in first paragraph so my past English teachers won't hate me as much.)

I haven't graded since 26 April, so I'm pretty rusty. I think the Oilers would sympathize. I barely had any pluses or minuses against any names at all, which could indicate that my powers of observation were lacking, or that no Oiler really did much to stand out one way or another. Either way, not a great game, but the only terrible came at the worst possible moment. Sadly, I realized about five minutes before the game that I have no recording device, so some details of some plays will have been lost to the vagaries of an old memory and whatever replays I can find online.

Smid, 5: 13 minutes of icetime. He was on the ice for 5 total goals - Glencross, Penner, Dawes, Brule, and Gagner. Dawes scored on the power play, as Phaneuf played the old "hey guys, watch this, five feet wide and off #5's chest and in!" bankshot. I'm not sure how that goal went to Dawes, but it doesn't matter. Smid wasn't really at fault there, and by the same token he wasn't much of a player on the three Oilers goals. He was scrappy at times, and had not-terrible coverage most of the time, so a 5.

Horcoff, 5: 19 minutes on the ice, 4:11 of PP time and one shot. -1 wasn't deserved, he was on the ice for Moss' second goal. He won faceoffs and wasn't bad defensively, but he needs to do more offensively. He was out against Iginla's line a lot in a power vs power matchup a lot, and while they were bottled up several times, they did their own share of bottling as well. Maybe deserves a 6 for helping to shut down Iggy et al, but the guy needs to put some in the net himself.

Cogliano, 4: a bit of a weak game from the speedster, not so much for what he did, but for what he didn't do. I suppose it could be a good thing that he was almost unnoticeable, but his line wasn't really a checking line. Showed good moxie getting up after being crushed along the boards, but he wasn't zooming around much. Maybe it doesn't do him any good to be lining up with two of the slower Oilers, but there's not many who can keep up with him anyway.

Moreau, 6: weak penalty and he was barely used on the PK, odd for a checking winger. Yet his hit led to a rushed pass that got bobbled to Gagner, so on the whole, a good game from TheCaptainEthanMoreau. If he plays just like that most nights, the team should be ok - it'd be better if he could eliminate the weak penalties altogether though. Not a bad night for 11 minutes of icetime.

O'Sullivan, 5: On the plus side, he had 6 shots, and some of them were pretty good chances. Another 3 missed the net, at least one of which would have been a golden opportunity. On the minus side, none of his 9 chances went in. What's better, a guy who gets 5 chances and 0 points, or a guy who gets 2 chances and 1 point? I also thought he should have had better coverage on Moss' first goal, although that being a penalty kill maybe he was where he should have been, I don't know.

Jacques, 4: 3 shots, 5 hits and 2 shotblocks. I thought only one of his shots was good, and he wasn't creating a lot. 4:07 of PP time, with which he did little. Maybe he needs a few games to settle in, but I can't see him staying with Hemsky for long. I love his effort, but he's a bigger, slower Liam Reddox on the top line at this point.

Staios, 6: I was shocked that he had nearly 20 minutes of icetime, which is a great thing if you're a defensive dman. 2 shots and one blocked, 1 blocked shot. He was a bit of the goat on the first Moss goal, I think he lost track of the Flames players and they got between him and the net. Still, a pretty decent outing from the former Thrashers captain. I thought the holding penalty was weak, his roughing one is forgiveable.

Penner, 6: Second star, a goal and an assist. He started the game strongly and, like the rest of the team, seemed to sag a bit in the second. He came back a bit in the third. His goal was a typical Penner goal, jamming it in from directly in front, and the assist came off a nice setup for Brule that the centre was frankly lucky to have scored. Manhandled Regehr early on, which must have been a surprise for #28. If he'd kept that first period play up all game, would have had a 7 or an 8. You can tell he's tired of answering the weight questions too. Who wouldn't be? Mike Milbury being angry at somebody for their manners is priceless too.

Stone, 4: Gritty play, but I think a secondary error on the Moss PP goal, he should probably have had the cross-ice pass. He's going to have to do more than check a smaller player into the bench to keep getting 13 minutes a game.

Grebeshkov, 6: A nice low-event game from #37. I saw him get hemmed in a bit too much for my liking, but that'll happen when you play as much as he did (22:30). He got a lot of power play time on a 0fer night though.

Souray, 5: It's not that His Hotness had a bad game, but this was one where he needed to assert himself in every aspect. His cannon needs to be on-target, not headhunting. He was good defensively though, and nearly got a stick on the Moss gimme goal. Led all Oilers whose last names don't start with K in icetime with 25 minutes. Like Horcoff, his -1 was undeserved.

Stortini, 5: It took 3 guys to help him off the ice after he clearly did Something Really Bad to his leg, and he was back the same period? The man is indestructible. Prust must have been happy it was #46 and not #33 he scrapped with though. +1 from Gagner's goal, although he didn't contribute much to it. If he plays like that he'll never be sent down, although he may not play every single night either.

Brule, 5: He got lucky on his goal, but you usually have to be in the right spot to be lucky. He needs to get better on faceoffs if they're going to be a secondary scoring line though. Some giveaways pulled his mark down.

Visnovsky, 5: Nice first hit also helped Glencross to pot his first of the season. Weak night on the power play, but was decent enough at evens. Hopefully he's still feeling the effects of too long a layoff.

Gilbert, 5: No scary moments, for either side. -1 from the Moss goal, I think the puck came up-ice on his side. Another guy who needs to produce on the power play for this team to work. Just average.

Hemsky, 5: The Hemmer-magic was not really evident tonight, as he was probably hampered a bit (see Horcoff). He needs a winger to set up, and I don't think JFJ is that guy, all due respect to Pat Quinn. Power play is all I need to say at this point. Credited with 3 shot blocks, which I didn't notice, but hey, good on him.

Gagner, 6: 2-8 on faceoffs kept him from a 7. I don't know why he decided to fight Conroy (I'm not sure Connie knows why either, he seemed a bit bemused in the penalty box), but he did ok there. Opportunistic goal is exactly what the doctor ordered, he made the most of 9:55 of icetime - 30 seconds on the PP isn't really much time to get things done.

Comrie, 5: He's finally settled into the role that MacTavish saw for him all those years ago, a decent supporting player who can chip them in. Powerplay though, 3:30 of nonproductive icetime there. His second assist on Penner's goal came off a faceoff win though, part of what the Oilers were missing last year. I doubt he can keep up the current pace of faceoff wins though.

Khabibulin, 3: "The player is usually involved in at least one massive blunder that directly contributes to a goal against." Enough said? He should stay in the net on a rolling puck like that, especially in a tie game with less than a minute left. He played well enough the rest of the night - a few great stops, but mostly vanilla.

Coaching staff: we don't usually grade them, but a few comments. This idea of spreading the scoring out almost worked tonight, but long-term, I can't see JFJ staying on the top line. In fact, the longer he's there while Penner plays like he did for 2/3 of the game, I think the more points this team gives up. Similarly, the longer Brule and Stone have spots on the roster, I think the worse off the team is going to be. None of those three are going to suddenly discover scoring hands, and while all proved themselves well in the AHL in that respect and have some size, each have some weaknesses that should keep them all to fourth-liners at best. Brule has the most upside, but Stone's skating makes Penner look good and Jacques' difficulties with creating plays or putting the puck in the net himself are well-documented. After last night, I've no reason to think this season will be any different from before. The defensive pairings seemed to work fairly well most of the night, although it was a bit curious to see Grebs get 5 minutes more than Visnovsky. Nearly a third of Vis' icetime came on the PP, so maybe the coaches want to work him back into gameshape while giving him some easier minutes and we'll see the numbers get more even. I don't know that the Horcoff PvP setup will work well either; if Hemsky thought he was being asked to be a checker under MacT, I can't see him being happy with this arrangement either, and O'Sullivan shouldn't get more power play time than #83.

Overall, they played well enough that you weren't left thinking "This is an NHL team?" but considering the talent they have, they should have shown more. We'll see what they have to show in the next few games, but if things keep up as they did last night, I can see Nilsson being brought in off popcorn duty to sub in for whoever's in the doghouse by game #5.

David Staples and I (and any other volunteers) are going to try our hands at grading the players again this season. Here's the original marking sheet from last season, which I'll be again using. Some of the descriptions are a bit dated, considering they were based on the team two years ago, but you get the point. Last season, David went to a more simplified version, but it's pretty much the same:

10. For a player to get a perfect score, he'd have to have a Gretzky or an Orr of a game, multiple goals and assists, at the very least a hat trick, or maybe four or five assists, that kind of night, something utterly extraordinary. For a goalie, it might mean saving 40-plus shots, many of them tough, but getting a shut-out and winning in a shoot-out.

9. In this case, the player would have to have a Messier or Coffey or a Fuhr of a game. So we are talking at least a few points, exceptional offensive and defensive play, a truly dominant performance. For a goalie, this would be an outstanding performance.

8. A great game, an Anderson, a Pronger or a Ranford of a game. The forward would have to be involved in at least one scoring play, and also show dominating two-way play. The defenceman wouldn't have to score, but would have to be a tower of power all over the ice. For a goalie, he could let in a few goals, but no weak ones, and he would have to steal the win for his team.

7. A good-to-great game, a Tikkanen, a Lowe or a Roloson (vintage 2006) of a game. The forward will likely put up one point and he definitely must be effective at both ends. As for the goalie position, they might let one bad one sneak by them in such a game, but still would need to make the key saves to get this score.

6. A good game, a Pisani, a Spacek, a Salo of a game. Maybe the offence wasn't great but the defence was superlative, or the other way around. Maybe there were a few bad moments, but, overall, things balanced out. Maybe the goalie let in a marginal goal, but otherwise he was competent enough.

5. An average game, a Kevin McCelland, a Don Jackson, a Ron Low of a game. Not good. Not bad. Competent. A few mistakes, maybe one that leads to a goal against. Good enough to stay in the NHL.

4. A Dave Hunter, a Pat Price, a Ty Conklin of a game, where the bad outweighs the good. A game where a big forward only makes a few aggressive plays but is otherwise passive, where the mistake-prone defenceman looks jittery, where the creative but erratic forward gives away the puck too much. A goalie would have to let in a bad goal at a key moment and let his team down.

3. A bad-to-terrible game. A game where a player is generally ineffective at both ends of the ice. It's the kind of game that has fans calling for a young player to be sent to the minors. The forward generates little offence and is weak in his own zone. The defenceman gets beat consistently. Thoughts of trading a veteran player are sparked. The player is usually involved in at least one massive blunder that directly contributes to a goal against.

2. A terrible game. This player is just totally out-to-lunch in the game. He makes multiple blunders that lead to goals against or excellent opposition scoring chances.

1. An utterly atrocious game. The player shows zero hustle or intensity and makes mistake after mistake that lead to excellent scoring chances and goals against.

Rob Schremp is one of those high-skill, high-risk players that gives scouts nightmares. Yes, every scout likes to hear about how smart they were, drafting Pavel Datsyuk in the 171st overall in the 6th round, but what about Ryan Barnes (55th), Tomek Valtonen (56th), Jake McCracken (84th), Brent Hobday (111th), Carl Steen (142nd), or Adam DeLeeuw (151st)? Those men have 2 NHL games played between them. If Detroit's scouts are so goddamned smart, why didn't they take Datsyuk with the Barnes pick and after the draft go on about how they couldn't believe he was still available that late? Yet you let a high-skill guy slip and next thing you know, some blogger's writing about how you could have had Mike Ribeiro if only you hadn't taken Michael Henrich instead.

That 1998 draft was terrible for the Oilers, by the way, their man in the first round was the only one to never play even a single NHL game. Meanwhile the guy taken just before him has 580 points and was still looking for a contract this September. It took a certain heterochromatic college boy taken 99th to give the Mighty Oil any semblance of respectability at all in a decently deep draft. But I digress.

The point is, the draft is largely a crapshoot. Sure, the odds are more in the scouts' favour in the first and second rounds, guys taken there tend to bust less than the guys taken in the 5th round, but for every Miro Satan there's any number of boulevards of broken dreams.

The Islanders plucked Rob Schremp (not in picture) off waivers the other day, much to the satisfaction of all three of the man's remaining fans. "Finally," they say, rubbing their hands together with glee, "we'll see what he looks like with the shackles off! Old Man MacTavish just couldn't stand skill players who wouldn't play in his mold!" When Schremp fizzles on the Island, it will be "See what the Oilers system has done to yet another quality prospect? Why oh why can't we be more like the Wings?!"

Yes, Deroit's had lots of success. Yes, I believe they have a quality system. Yet they could have had Andrew Cogliano, but they took Jakub Kindl instead. Even if they wanted D, Marc-Edouard Vlasic was still on the table. Perception is a funny thing; Edmonton's busts are the fault of the coach, the GM, the scouts - anybody but the player - where Detroit's are written off as the vagaries of the draft. Anybody still think Igor Grigorenko's going to come out of nowhere and prove to be better than Tomas Plekanec, Stephane Veilleux, or even Patrick Sharp The Pride of The University of Vermont?

This isn't some "bash Detroit to pump Edmonton up" article though. Edmonton's clearly had developmental issues. Lack of a farm team will do that to you every time, and there's no question their prospects have suffered because of it. Detroit's still the class of the league for the last 10 years, but even they have obviously bet on 12 a few times when there were some 7s left in the dice.

Returning to the man in the title, Jonathan Willis thinks that Schremp will get 40 points, 25 on the PP with the Isles. Willis is a smart man, and others are probably making similar bets, but I say if Schremp gets 40 points, it's with the Bridgeport Sound Tigers, not the Isles. Mike Comrie, who has a much better pedigree than Schremp at this point, only managed 49 points in 76 games playing with Bill Guerin and Miroslav Satan in 07-08. Meanwhile, Schremp has struggled to score in the AHL and will be playing with has-beens and up-and-comers. Yes, the Falcons were terrible, but let's face it - the Islanders didn't win the Tavares Sweepstakes by sending in the Reader's Digest cards.

I want Schremp to succeed, I really do. I don't like seeing anybody fail, much less young men my favourite NHL team drafted in favour of Mike Green, Schremp's teammate David Bolland, or David Booth. But if - and that's a huge if at this point - he succeeds, it will be despite himself, not despite Craig MacTavish or Kelly Buchberger or Kevin Lowe. And for every Ray Whitney you throw at me, I'll return a Jani Rita; for every Daniel Cleary, I'll return Pat Falloon and Jason Bonsignore, with a side dish of Alex Selivanov.