Would you take Carle back?
View Single Post
05-15-2012, 05:14 PM
Join Date: May 2011
Originally Posted by
It's pretty obvious to anyone who's read these forums that there are a few vehement defenders of Carle:
There's honestly something fishy about two of them, because they constantly quote each other as factual evidence for their arguments, but I digress. Just a head's up for others, as these people don't really listen to valid arguments, refer to Corsi as "fact", and generally love Matt Carle regardless of poor play. Hopefully when the Flyers let him walk, they walk too.
I don't think Carle is an awful player, but he can't play in the top-4, and he's pretty easy to coach against. He's a great, fast skater. That's a blessing and a curse for defensemen. It gives them the ability correct positioning errors and catch other players on the ice. It also gives them the curse of being able to move completely out of position with just a few steps. Carle's positioning in the defensive zone is awful to anyone who has actually played the game. He constantly wanders from the net, allowing opposing players to slip in behind him. He gets caught above the circles while the puck is still in the zone. He essentially moves out of position with the play, oftentimes following the puck (or the wrong player) up the boards.
His lack of physicality is alarming for a defenseman who has seen so much playoff action in his career. Opposing teams bring the puck down his side because he gives up the blue line. When they end up on Carle's partner's side of the ice, the puck is dumped into Carle's corner, because he's easily knocked off the puck. Carle also doesn't use his body in the corner and along the boards, allowing the cycle to work with little resistance. This was the Devils' tactic and it worked perfectly for them.
Of the Flyers, Carle remains their least physical defenseman and most prone to turnovers.
This is essentially what killed the Flyers against the Devils. They were able to play within the Flyers zone regardless of whether they had the puck or not.
The Flyers have offensive players; It's time to shore up the defense. Matt Carle's probably a perfect fit for some other teams, but not this one, and not at the money he will command. He's a one-dimensional defenseman, and can be replaced.
Basically, if we like seeing goals and shallow playoff runs, we should keep Carle. If we want to win a Cup sometime soon, we need to get better on the blue line, and signing a 5-million dollar offensive-defenseman to a team loaded with offense is redundant and completely illogical.
Well then it's pretty obvious you've never played the game. Because Carle is solid in his positioning defensively. And unlike what you didn't do, I'll provide the evidence. Carle is one of the top shot blockers in the League, and is the top shot blocker on his team. Which proves that he's solid in his positioning in his own end. If you need the exact figures, I'll gladly provide them for you. Because unlike you, I deal in the facts. How can someone who claims to have played the game, make the statement that Carle can't play in the top 4? When he obviously does and has, for a number of years now. You watch the games you can clearly see that Carle isn't easily knocked off the puck. And if you look at the advanced stats, the refute every statement you've made. And your other comments such as about Carle moving up the boards or following the wrong man, shows that you clearly don't understand basic defensive zone coverage. Nor do you understand the Flyers defensive zone system. Just like another poster who says that Carle just passes the puck to another defenseman, and is incapable of recognizing a basic D to D breakout that is by design. It's laughable what you read on here. It really is. So it's one of two things. Either you have an unreasonable bias against the player. Or you simply don't know what your talking about. So which is it?
If you want me to listen to a valid argument. Well then the first step is to make one. And you've failed to do so. I need some facts to back up these statements. You didn't offer a single one.
And I think your going to find in the very near future, that Paul Holmgren does not agree with you.
Last edited by VanSciver: 05-15-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by VanSciver