HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Philadelphia Flyers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   News Article: Tough to grade Flyers this season (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=721070)

MiamiScreamingEagles 01-03-2010 11:15 AM

Tough to grade Flyers this season
 
Wayne Fish's grades. We can open this for discussion...

Quote:


It's the halfway point in the Flyers' season today and that means it's time to hand out the notorious mid-term grades.

This won't be any easy task, mainly because the team has experienced such an up-and-down season.

Do you judge on the first 18 games of the season (12-5-1), the second 17 (3-13-1) or the last five (4-0-1)?

Keep in mind, this marker favors players who overachieve, ones who go above and beyond expectations. On the flip side, players who underachieve are judged accordingly.

Let's take a crack at these grades and see if we can agree on a few:
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news...-season-1.html

1865 01-03-2010 11:19 AM

Coburn too high, carter too low.

DUHockey9 01-03-2010 11:21 AM

The grade for Coburn makes me think this guy doesn't have a clue. There is no way Coburn is a C+ while Betts or Powe are C's. If C is more or less being what is expected, I think it's obvious Coburn is playing well below expectations whereas Betts and Powe are playing probably slightly better than I expected them to.

Cleary84 01-03-2010 11:21 AM

I disagree with giving both Powe and Betts a C just because of time missed from injuries. They are excellent role players, Betts does his job whenever needed and Powe provides good energy.

I'd give Powe a B and Betts a B+

RIPRichardsCarter 01-03-2010 11:27 AM

I wish they wouldn't grade them based on their injuries. It's not really fair.

I agree with most though.

CS 01-03-2010 11:39 AM

Basically the article's logic is full of loopholes, fantastic idealizations for some players, and over-exaggerated problems for others.

It's always hard to make grades, but he seems to be doing a combination of grading players on result vs. expectation as well as just flat out grading their play.

You can't really combine both in one go and say, "Here, this is how so and so has played."

That's what leads to Michael Leighton being an A+. His play hasn't warranted such, but the sensationalism of a win streak along with a defense rallying fantastically in front of a weak goaltender has created this grade.

I think Michael Leighton has done a great job, but this article suggests it was because he's magically turned into some solid goaltender which is far from the truth.

There's other problems as well. He rewards Leighton for basically only playing 5 games. You think he would've won much a month ago? How many other players on this list were dropped because they haven't played enough games?

GKJ 01-03-2010 11:47 AM

Leighton gets an A+ but Betts and Powe are penalized for being injured. Leighton was on waivers twice, although irrelevant since it wasn't the Flyers doing it.

Leighton is what he is, he's done well, but ultimately he's playing just to earn another shot with someone down the road, here or somewhere else.

DrinkFightFlyers 01-03-2010 12:05 PM

meh.

L-train* 01-03-2010 12:48 PM

My Grades... changed the text I didn't agree with and left what I agreed with.


B-: Michael Leighton: Played solid and benefitted from good bounces through an unexpected 4 game winning streak.

B+: Matt Carle: Still young, has improved dramatically this season, however, how much of that is because of Pronger?

A-: Ian Laperriere: Fearless shot blocker, plays defense, willing to fight

B+: Chris Pronger: Stable presence and consistent play has helped the blue line solidify.

C+: Claude Giroux: Notorious slow starter, beginning to pick it up.

D: Mike Richards: No excuse for a team of this caliber to play as poor as they were playing up until about 5 games ago. Not producing offensively as expected.

C: James van Riemsdyk: Started fast, dropped off like a rock. Rigors of an 82 game regular season schedule appear to be wearing on him.

C-: Kimmo Timonen: Play has been less than stellar, and far behind prior years. Has played a little better as of late.

B+: Oskars Bartulis: Although a rookie, he plays as if he has at least 5 years of NHL experience under his belt.

B: Daniel Carcillo: Hard to believe given his penalty total but he's played well

B-: Brian Boucher: Despite his 4-10-1 record, has filled in well for starter Ray Emery

D: Braydon Coburn: Has played quite poorly and is now regulated to third line duties. His poor play may help the Flyers retain him once his contracts up, but will they want to? Has shown no indications of becoming the D-Man everybody thought he was going to be.

C: Simon Gagne: Injuries are becoming a problem.

B-: Daniel Briere: Brings it every night, and produces offense even when nobody else is.

D+: Scott Hartnell: Stupid penalties, just as years prior, but reduced offensive output gives him no excuse for his poor play.

C: Ray Emery: Started hot, faltered presumably due to injury, should have had surgery earlier.

C-: Jeff Carter: 46 goals a year ago, on pace for less than 30 this year.

C+: Danny Syvret: Nice surprise callup. Got his first goal in the WC.

C: Arron Asham: If only the man didn't have hands of stone...

C+: Blair Betts: Valuable penalty killer, face-off man, just hasn't played much

B-: Darroll Powe: Pretty much the same story as Betts

C-: Ryan Parent: Should be playing better than this and too injury-prone

D: Riley Cote: Questionable NHL player.

D-: Mika Pyorala: Needs more seasoning to get used to the North American style, imho.

D+: Ole-Kristian Tollefsen: Talk about glass...

Coach

C: Peter Laviolette: Team still isn't performing up to standards, but his system seems solid, and it appears the players are finally beginning to play well under him.

General manager

C-: Paul Holmgren: A slightly below average GM in terms of cap management and trades. Made a good move picking up Leighton, or maybe a lucky move.

DickTony 01-03-2010 01:22 PM

Homer didn't bring in enough depth players? What? We can't score....

jb** 01-03-2010 06:37 PM

A team that is near the bottom of the league shouldnt have that many players with a high grade. Comical really. This team is one of the biggest underachieving teams i have seen in a long time. No d or f's? unreal

Scoopyten 01-04-2010 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiamiScreamingEagles (Post 22980018)
Wayne Fish's grades. We can open this for discussion...



http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news...-season-1.html

He was way too nice.

Pronger deserves no more than a C. He's been a huge disappointment for me. Coburn's been garbage most of the year. Cote doesn't even deserve a grade.

Jester 01-04-2010 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSaq (Post 23003947)
He was way too nice.

Pronger deserves no more than a C. He's been a huge disappointment for me. Coburn's been garbage most of the year. Cote doesn't even deserve a grade.

Tough to say on Pronger. He was incredibly good the first 18 games, but has proven unable to keep his individual play at that level when everything else went to **** around him.

Coburn is a mess.

Scoopyten 01-04-2010 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jester (Post 23004109)
Tough to say on Pronger. He was incredibly good the first 18 games, but has proven unable to keep his individual play at that level when everything else went to **** around him.

Coburn is a mess.

What bothers me most was the "great leadership" comment. Pronger's shown the exact opposite. He cried to the media about Richards' not asking him for help, rather than going to the kid behind the scenes and offer it.

Then as the level of play goes to Hell, he talks about looking in the mirror, but his play was down, too. He's played OK, but the price paid to get him was to get an elite player, not a good solid player.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:31 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.