Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Cynthia DuBose's avatar

I was screaming at the TV the whole latter part of the third period -- get the puck OUT! What I really meant was, stop playing defense and start being aggressive the way you have the whole game. Much of the third period was spent in Edmonton's end. That strategy was a major error by Hiller -- all of the post-game analysts said as much. My fear is the momentum has swung.

Expand full comment
Tom O.'s avatar

The worst part for me was in the post game presser when Hiller said (paraphrasing) it was an emotional game and then called the reporter asking the question emotional, too. To assume the position of the empirical expert at that time was ludicrous, especially when his decision defied any logic.

He's trying to climb Mount Everest without oxygen, hauling a piano with no sherpas. He's running three lines, double shifting Byfield and Danault while doing so.

He's playing Doughty like a kid eating too much sugar.

He's confessing his mistrust in key players by benching them, as if it weren't he that was supposed to have gotten them ready to contribute all season. Low ice time is one thing; 3 minutes total is an insult. It contradicts his stated "reasoning" given for the 11/7 which is he wants to keep guys warm despite special teams when he favors the 1st unit to almost exclusive use.

He's dressing 12/6 but playing 9/5. He's ceding a fatigue advantage that the Oilers give him. Instead of pounding McDavid and Draisaitl during their usual 21-plus minutes, he's icing Kopitar for 22 plus. Games previous one could point to 5 minutes on the Power Play to inflate the top 6 ice times, but not this game. Does he not understand that humans get tired, that Kopi is 37, that Byfield is only 22?

It's not a new idea to "play the top guys more" and other coaches have iced a 4th line with limited minutes, but keeping 22% of your lineup in purgatory is no way to get to heaven.

Hiller is short-sighted as he himself states. He abandons anything about tomorrow in wild pursuit of today.

Consider the circumstances of the challenge call; he is late-game, having over-used his top players, having blown a lead and needing to regroup, having a series lead and not wanting to lose series momentum, having seen his guys answer an earlier tying goal 9 seconds later to get the lead back, and then he decides to challenge on something so "iffy" that he needed to burn his time out just to look at it long enough to try to find something.

If they had just accepted the goal, and lost the game later, I could live with it. But to give them back the fatigue advantage, to ignore Turcotte and then sit Lewis, to burn guys out early and often in games and in the series, and then to inject himself into the outcome like the mad tinkerer I've called him in the past... these are unacceptable. These are unforced errors based on illogic. He just couldn't let it be, he had to "try something."

I had the same thoughts as you did, immediately, and so did the reporters and even the clown show broadcast crew of Liam, Ace etc. "Inexplicable", "...can't wrap my head around it", "...and he burned his time out, too, what a blunder".

McSorely's stick, a potential series changer, taking the game out of the competent hands of a hot team of players, forcing himself into the game... it was a fumb duck move and always will be.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts