Oilers Recall Potulny

The Edmonton Oilers recalled Ryan Potulny today. It would seem to be an obvious move since he’s among the 14 best forwards in the organization with the other “shoe to drop” being Gilbert Brule.

The only reasonable explanation for Potulny and Brule being in the minor leagues have to do with the strength of the Falcons and in Brule’s case nearing the waiver eligibity “line in the sand.”

At this point this is a loser’s bet. One of Craig MacTavish or Kevin Lowe are extremely unlikely to return next year should this club miss the playoffs again.

Just as a drowning man should grab any opportunity so too should the Edmonton Oilers follow up the Potulny recall with another transaction: Gilbert Brule to the Oilers.

Now.

written by

The author didn‘t add any Information to his profile yet.
Related Posts

49 Responses to "Oilers Recall Potulny"

  1. Masamax says:

    This raises two questions, assuming they call up Brule in the near future as well: where are they going to play?

    The real problem here is that I just don’t know how MacT is constructing lines at this point. With Gagner out, could we see one of these two on the second line? Or maybe a bump up of Brodziak to that line? If the latter, how much does that weaken (i.e. castrate) our fourth line?

    Does anyone know how these two guys are on faceoffs? That would probably be my biggest factor on how I would like them placed in the lineup.

  2. doritogrande says:

    Penner-Horcoff-Hemsky
    Nilsson-Cogliano-Cole
    Moreau-Brodziak-Pouliot
    Reddox-Potulny-MacIntyre
    Strudwick-Gagner(Brule if Gagner on IR)

    Anyone have some better suggestions, I’m open to them.

  3. CM says:

    I would love to see both lowe and MacT not return next year…and then perhaps we can bring in a management group who has a sense of direction

  4. Lowetide says:

    dorito: I think Gagner has to be part of the top 12F if healthy.

    If Gagner is unavailable:

    Horcoff-Penner-Hemsky
    Cogliano-Potulny-Cole
    Pouliot-Moreau-Brodziak
    Brule-Reddox-Nilsson

  5. Yeti says:

    dorito – my suggestion is to put Stortini on your team.

  6. Black Dog says:

    Wow. I’m amazed how in the space of one game this team has gone from being s darling to a disaster.

    Just like that.

    And Potulny and Brule to ride to the rescue?

    They are where we figured they would be, likely even better seeing as really only four teams have clearance right now. Tuesday was a disaster and now its over. Its two points lost, nothing more.

    They’ll be in the mix come April and if they fall short MacT will be gone. Lowe is Castro, I think.

    But really folks, I think everyone needs to calm down just a little bit here. Its getting a little dramatic, no?

  7. doritogrande says:

    LT: I’m basing this on the fact that he’s injured, not playing but not on IR. As of yet, I haven’t heard anything to suggest he’s been placed on the hockey equivalent of the 15-day DL. I agree though, if he’s healthy he’s my 2-line C with Nilsson and Cole.

    Yeti: As far as I know, Stortini’s still injured. Is this not correct?

  8. doritogrande says:

    Edit to add:

    LT, why is our (arguably) best faceoff guy not lining up down the middle in your line-up?

  9. Rod says:

    @dorito:

    Stortini played against the Sabres.

    And LT lists the C first. Gets me every time…and then I remember.

  10. Lowetide says:

    BDHS: I don’t agree. If you lose Sam Gagner you need to replace him with someone who can score goals. In the Buffalo game, here at the EV icetime totals by forwards:

    1. Hemsky 11:46
    2. Horcoff 11:14
    3. Cole 11:11
    4. Nilsson 11:02
    5. Moreau 10:52
    6. Cogliano 10:46
    7. Penner 10:21
    8. Pouliot 10:11
    9. Reddox 9:46
    10. Brodziak 9:30
    11. Stortini 8:40
    12. Strudwick 8:40

    I don’t think those are the 12 best forwards available at this time. Potulny and Brule should be able to draw into that lineup and I understand it means dropping Stortini who is a good and loyal soldier.

    They need more speed and skill. Potulny and Brule. Now.

  11. doritogrande says:

    Rod:

    Thanks for the heads up RE: Stortini. I missed said massacre, and don’t really mind missing it.

    I do however, know that LT lists C as the first player on each line. I’m referring to Brodziak on the Starboard side of the 3-line.

  12. Traktor says:

    Replace Lowe with Jimmy Hart and MacTavish with Lenny Wilkens.

  13. Traktor says:

    Lowetide:

    We currently sit last place in the league in hits – I’m not sure dropping Stortini is an option.

  14. doritogrande says:

    We currently sit last place in the league in hits – I’m not sure dropping Stortini is an option.

    Detroit didn’t win the cup by hitting people. Well…Kronvall did, but that’s about it.

    I’m with LT. More skill A-SAP!

  15. Lowetide says:

    I have no problem with Brodziak taking the faceoffs on that line. Just let Pouliot take the draws before Moreau. :-)

  16. Traktor says:

    Dallas up 3-0 on the Wings.

    Someone around here called them a lock to make the playoffs when they were in like 12th or 13th but I cant remember who it was.

  17. Traktor says:

    Dorito:

    1. We don’t have nearly the amount of skill that the Wings have.

    2. Their skill guys battle as hard as anyone in the league.

  18. B.C.B. says:

    Brule shouldn’t be replacing Stortini on the fourth line. Brule should be replacing Nilsson on the second; if he can’t then he should be in the AHL.
    Maybe Brule will never be a top 6 forward, but I think the Oilers tactic on reviving him is a good one. If next year he still isn’t ready for top two lines then run him against the dregs with the dregs. I think he should be getting at least 10 (EV) minutes a game: either in the Blue and Orange silks or what ever stupid coloured jersey Springfield wears.

  19. bookie says:

    Wow. I’m amazed how in the space of one game this team has gone from being s darling to a disaster.

    But really folks, I think everyone needs to calm down just a little bit here. Its getting a little dramatic, no?

    Ah, lets face it, if we were all rational/logical human beings we wouldn’t waste our time on either hockey or blogs…

  20. Black Dog says:

    Sam has nice underlying numbers, that’s great for the future of this club, but he has what, four, five goals??

    Move Cogliano up to play with Cole and Nilsson.

    This club still needs a couple of big men up front to move the puck in the right direction. If they don’t feel that Brodziak can do the job between Moreau and Pouliot (jesus) then trade a pick or one of these tweeners for Jim Dowd.

    I like Potulny and if you think he is a better option then Nilsson then have at it and I like Brule too. But what we’re talking about is building a fourth line here, more then anything.

    The Leafs are falling apart and its really getting ugly. The guys they should be going after are Nick Hagman or Ponikorovsky – either of those guys would be a help.

  21. Fake Craig McTavish says:

    Dallas up 3-0 on the Wings.

    Someone around here called them a lock to make the playoffs when they were in like 12th or 13th but I cant remember who it was.

    Ta da!

  22. Rod says:

    @dorito:
    Whoops…didn’t connect that Brodz is arguably the best FO man. I was looking at 10 for that. Thanks for clarifying. Now if only I could say I entirely missed the 10-2 drubbing…

    @LT:
    I have no problem with Brodziak taking the faceoffs on that line. Just let Pouliot take the draws before Moreau. :-)
    Zing! Nice one.

  23. Jonathan Willis says:

    Someone around here called them a lock to make the playoffs when they were in like 12th or 13th but I cant remember who it was.

    I seem to remember most of the folks around here agreeing with that guy too, despite their immediate urge to disagree with him just because of who he was.

  24. Traktor says:

    Question about QUALCOMP.

    How would playing against Pahlsson reflect QUALCOMP ratings compared to playing against Getzlaf.

  25. Fake Craig McTavish says:

    Jonathan Willis said…

    “I seem to remember most of the folks around here agreeing with that guy too, despite their immediate urge to disagree with him just because of who he was.”

    Minnesota and Columbus will too. One spot for the Oilers, Canucks, Avalanche and Kings to squabble over.

  26. DeBakey says:

    Pahlsson screws up Qualcomp

    Getzlaff is harder,
    Or has been

  27. Bruce says:

    Sam Gagner ranks 11th on the Oilers in points and 12th in goals. I think most of us would agree he’s more important than that in the scheme of things, but he hasn’t exactly been pouring in gobs of goals.

    Nor has that been the Oil’s biggest problem. Oilers rank 15th in the league in G/G, 25th in GA/G, and as Traktor points out, 30th and last in hits. They are more than 50 hits behind the next lowest teams, Atlanta and Vancouver, and over 100 hits in arrears of any team in a playoff position. (Detroit ranks 21st)

    Sure they need speed and skill but they also need size and strength. (Some saves would be nice too.) You don’t just gut your line-up of other elements to deal with a perceived weakness. Especially if some of those elements are already weaknesses themselves.

    We need more balance in the line-up, not less.

  28. Oilmaniac says:

    Bookie-

    Ah, lets face it, if we were all rational/logical human beings we wouldn’t waste our time on either hockey or blogs…

    Thats priceless… great line…

  29. doritogrande says:

    Bit of odd news here, Swedish 2nd tier team Malmo essentially just went bankrupt, releasing all, that's ALL their contracted players.

    http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=265093&lid=sublink010&lpos=headlines_main

    Is this even legal?

  30. HBomb says:

    Is this even legal?

    Everything’s legal in Sweden. Otherwise, how would you explain the obvious marrying-of-cousins that had to happen in order to produce the Sedin twins?

  31. Jonathan Willis says:

    How would playing against Pahlsson reflect QUALCOMP ratings compared to playing against Getzlaf.

    If I’ve read the FAQ right, the difficulty of an opponent is measured by his +/- relative to that of the team. In this case, Getzlaf has a .98 rating, while Pahlsson is rated at -1.96, putting Getzlaf well ahead.

    My feelings on QualComp have shifted in the last little while. It’s handy as a general reference, but I think that:

    a) The exact order of guys in the middle of the pack is probably fairly negotiable.

    and that

    b) It probably doesn’t separate the hard minutes guys enough from the soft minutes guys.

    Still, it does seem to match up well with other measures.

  32. Fake Craig McTavish says:

    Jonathan Willis said…
    How would playing against Pahlsson reflect QUALCOMP ratings compared to playing against Getzlaf.

    If I’ve read the FAQ right, the difficulty of an opponent is measured by his +/- relative to that of the team. In this case, Getzlaf has a .98 rating, while Pahlsson is rated at -1.96, putting Getzlaf well ahead.

    My feelings on QualComp have shifted in the last little while. It’s handy as a general reference, but I think that:

    a) The exact order of guys in the middle of the pack is probably fairly negotiable.

    and that

    b) It probably doesn’t separate the hard minutes guys enough from the soft minutes guys.

    Here’s the way it really works Jonathan.

    When the game or season is on the line you show up or you’re a pussy.

    “Hard minutes” or “Soft Minutes” don’t mean shit.

    Do you make a difference or don’t you?

    That’s called a winner.

  33. HBomb says:

    “Hard minutes” or “Soft Minutes” don’t mean shit.

    Yes, they mean a ton….if your don’t have guys who can match-up and saw-off (at least) with the other team’s best, you’re pretty much screwed.

  34. Jonathan Willis says:

    When the game or season is on the line you show up or you’re a pussy.

    “Hard minutes” or “Soft Minutes” don’t mean shit.

    Do you make a difference or don’t you?

    FCM:

    Really? So it makes no difference whatsoever if you line up at the faceoff dot and see Ales Hemsky there or see Liam Reddox there?

    Just win, damn it – I don’t care if you play Jarome Iginla or Andre Roy, because either way the result is entirely dependant on whether or not you have the heart, the guts, the lack of pansiness to get the job done.

    The opposition matters. I don’t understand how any kind of rational argument can be made that says otherwise.

  35. Jonathan Willis says:

    Let me rephrase:

    I sure hope you were being sarcastic there, FCM.

  36. relic says:

    JW: pansiness

    lol, great line.

    that’s such a ridiculous word, it’s amazing how much of an ass Milbury makes himself look like when he brings it up on HNIC.

  37. relic says:

    and, I’d line ‘em up like this.

    Penner-Horcoff-Hemsky
    Nilsson-Cogliano-Cole
    Moreau-Brodziak-Reddox/Stortini
    Potulny-Brule-Pouliot

  38. Dennis says:

    Not really sure if we have room for both 21 and 67.

    From an early look it appears that 21′s perhaps a better bet right now for top six EV time and I guess that’s why he got the call.

    That and the fact the Oil have one game left on 67′s waiver-gauge.

  39. Dennis says:

    The Oilers are an absolutely hateful fucking organization.

    Check out this copy and paste, a little tidbit from Brownlee over at ON:

    LOSER SONG NOT A HIT WITH OILERS . . .
    I think the Loser Song the Calgary radio station churned out to the Kinks “Lola” after the Sabres sliced and diced the Good Guys is pretty funny and well done, but the Oilers don’t agree.
    While Jason Gregor and I were on the air today, we played the song and had a good laugh over it. Hey, if the Flames got lit up that bad and somebody here came up with a parody that slick, I’d laugh at it, too.
    Not long after, we got a call from producer Will Fraser at TEAM 1260 and he told us Allan Watt, the Oilers vice-president of communications and broadcast, had phoned to complain and that he’d also contacted several other stations demanding they not play it.
    Last time I checked, the Oilers didn’t have a rightsholder agreement with Astral Media and have no right to try to dictate what goes on the air at TEAM 1260 and other Astral stations.
    Strike another blow for the Department of No Fun.

  40. Satisfied_to_Ignore says:

    What am I missing in regards to Reddox?

    With Potulny and Brule as options I see no reason why he is here. In the games I have watched him he looks completely ineffective and would likely not even be top 6 in Springfield…

    Am I totally off here??

    My Lines:

    Penner-Horcoff-Hemsky
    Nilsson-Gagner-Cole
    Brule-Cogliano-Pouliot
    Moreau-Brodziak-MacIntyre/Stortini
    Strudwick-Potulny

    Of course assuming gagner is in. If not then Potulny bumps the centers up one each. Once Pisani comes back we trade a package for a vet RH Center to make the run for the cup…

    Seriously, how does Reddox even get in this lineup!

  41. oilerdiehard says:

    Fake Craig McTavish said…

    Minnesota and Columbus will too. One spot for the Oilers, Canucks, Avalanche and Kings to squabble over.

    Wait you have been pumping up the Canucks hardcore since early Summer. I think you even called it if they got Sundin they would win the division.

    Now you are saying they might not even make the playoffs? When did this shift in your thinking come about?

  42. Duke Phillips says:

    Dennis: the song contains clips of Phillips and Stauffer – which Fan 960 and the Team don’t have the rights to use – so the Oilers have every reason to go after those stations and protect their rightsholders…

    it still looks kinda petty though…

  43. HBomb says:

    Dennis: If what Duke is saying is true, then yeah, Watt’s totally in his place to do what he’s doing, without question.

    And I don’t think that anyone in Edmonton would come up with such a “parody” if the Flames got lit up like that, at least not in a regular season game. Sounds like a Mike Richards in the Morning “inferiority complex” special to me.

  44. Schitzo says:

    Question about QUALCOMP.

    How would playing against Pahlsson reflect QUALCOMP ratings compared to playing against Getzlaf.

    Right now, it doesn’t measure it properly. It’s calculated by taking the difference between on-ice +/- per 60 and off-ice +/- per 60. So if you’re +1 over 60 minutes on the ice, and the team is -1 over 60 minutes you’re on the bench, your total is +2/60.

    QualComp basically takes that number for the 5 guys you’re on the ice against, and averages it.

    Pahllson is -1.18 on-ice (because he gets the hardest minutes and doesn’t score a lot), and 0.77 off-ice (because then Ryan and Getzlaf’s lines make hay).

    So he ends up with a -1.95, and is apparently “easy” to play against.

    Chess had a similar problem in its ranking systems – a game that ends in a draw between two average players “looks” the same as two grandmasters battling to a draw.

    They use something called the Elo system, which is recursive – it takes into account your current rating to calculate your new rating.

    In the chess world, the way it works is you’re assigned a ranking (call it 800). If you play someone with a ranking of 1200, the formula uses your current ranking to say you “should” win only 10% of the time. So if you ACTUALLY win 50% of the time, we know that assigning you 800 points is too low, and adjust upwards.

    In hockey, the closest thing to a “win” between two opposing players would be when the puck ends up in the net.

    And strength of two opponents is probably best approximated by your +/- per 60. For example, if you have a player who is +2 per 60, and a player who is Even per 60, you’d expect that over 60 minutes they’d split the difference and the “better” player would be +1. [The worse player would be -1]

    The problem is that this can happen a lot of ways – a 7-6 score gives the same result as a 1-0 score as it relates to your +/-.

    So in the hockey example, you’d take Hemsky’s +/- per 60 (1.17), subtract Pahllson’s (-1.95), and divide by two. That gives you 1.56 in favour of Hemsky. It would take him 40 minutes to end up +1 against Pahllson.

    But Hemsky’s GFON/60 is 3.09. In 40 minutes of icetime, you’d expect the Oilers to have 2 GF. What if the score is 1-0? This jives with what we expect from +/-, but his production has still been cut in half!.

    So this is where QualComp fails – when a player is getting outscored, but is coming much closer to keeping their head above water than they should.

    So if we do some simple math, let G_a be goals actually scored, and G_p the goals predicted by GF60.

    X = G_a / G_p

    This means X will be greater than one if you score more goals than predicted, and between zero and 1 if you score less goals than predicted. In the Hemsky example, over 60 minutes we might expect 3 goals but only score 1.5. X = 0.5

    Now lets adjust Pahlsson’s numbers by X:

    We could simply use X * -1.95 = -0.97. This makes him look much less bad, but still suggests that he is “easy” to play against. This simple formula can never turn a player with a negative value into a positive one.

    Alternately, we could establish some factor of adjustment. For example, lets use 3*(1-X)/X:

    This gives us -1.95 + 3*(0.5)/0.5 = -1.95 + 3 = +1.05. OK, that suggests Pahlsson is hard to play against, but what does it do for other values of X?

    If X is 1 (that is, you get scored on exactly as much as the other guy’s GFON predicts), the (1-X) term ensures that the factor is zero, and +/- per 60 is unchanged. Good.

    If X is greater than 1 (you get scored on MORE than GFON suggests you should), then the (1-X) term is negative. For example, X = 1.2 gives an adjustment of -0.5, suggesting you’re easier to play against.

    [As a note, the value of 3 was just something I pulled out of thin air, it could easily be 1, 2, or 3.14].

    Well, that ended up longer than I intended. But yeah, in summary, the point is to look at factors beyond simply whether you get scored on.

  45. Doogie2K says:

    [As a note, the value of 3 was just something I pulled out of thin air, it could easily be 1, 2, or 3.14].

    2.71828? ;)

  46. Schitzo says:

    2.71828? ;)

    That seems natural

  47. Traktor says:

    Thank for the explanations.

  48. MattM says:

    Schitzo, that is a terrible, terrible pun.

  49. Master Lok says:

    I agree with your lineup except I’d rather have Stortini on the fourth line instead of Reddox. Although I’m pretty disgusted with Nilsson’s lack of effort.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca