HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

Theodore, a possible choice?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-02-2010, 02:40 PM
  #126
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,364
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
I'm not talking about Gagne or Richards, or whoever else. I'm talking about the goaltending. And ours was outplayed, outplayed during games, and outplayed in clutch situations. You say how bad both goaltenders were, but Richards' line was not scoring? Briere, Leino, and Hartnell were unconscious, they got goals from freaken Betts and Asham in Game 1, they got a couple big goals from Giroux. They did get a goal from Gagne in Game 2, that would have tied the game if Leighton didn't give up his second worst goal of the series to Ben Eager less than a minute after Hossa scored. Again, big saves in big moments, direct opposite from what I mentioned about Niemi earlier where he made a huge save on Carter. More of a complaint than the lack of offense from Richards, Gagne, and Carter is the lack of defense from Gagne, Richards, and Carter.
Outside of game 2 Leighton and Niemi played the same. Niemi let in softies, so did Leighton. Niemi made good saves, so did Leighton. I am not saying that Richards, Gagne, and Carter are to blame for the loss alone, but it is a team effort to win and a team effort to lose. I am tired of people on this board jumping on one player or the coach after every game. It is rarely, if ever, one player's fault that a game is lost. When Leighton gets his first shutout of the season, I would bet a thousand dollars that everyone on here will say Leighton is so lucky to play behind this defense. Then Leighton will go out and lose 2-1 and everyone will say how terrible Leighton because he is so bad and the defense and offense played great but Leighton lost the game. That is how this season will go, just like the beginning of last season was every loss was all John Stevens' fault and every win was in spite of him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
the Flyers offense did their job. 22 goals in 6 games should be enough. yes the top line didnt score enough, but the Hawks shut down every teams top line in the playoffs. So its up to the other forwards to pick it up. Which they did. Goaltending let the Flyers down in the playoffs. again.
But that is just not the case. When your top line isn't scoring, your team is not doing its job. You depend on those top line guys for scoring and the supporting cast is supposed to get the supporting goals. Without primary scoring there is no secondary scoring. Again, it is a team effort. Just like if Richards, Carter, and Gagne lit it up and no one else was really contributing, the secondary scoring would be getting some blame.

I just remembered why I stopped commenting on this subject months ago.


DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
10-02-2010, 03:00 PM
  #127
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,888
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Outside of game 2 Leighton and Niemi played the same. Niemi let in softies, so did Leighton. Niemi made good saves, so did Leighton. I am not saying that Richards, Gagne, and Carter are to blame for the loss alone, but it is a team effort to win and a team effort to lose. I am tired of people on this board jumping on one player or the coach after every game. It is rarely, if ever, one player's fault that a game is lost. When Leighton gets his first shutout of the season, I would bet a thousand dollars that everyone on here will say Leighton is so lucky to play behind this defense. Then Leighton will go out and lose 2-1 and everyone will say how terrible Leighton because he is so bad and the defense and offense played great but Leighton lost the game. That is how this season will go, just like the beginning of last season was every loss was all John Stevens' fault and every win was in spite of him.



But that is just not the case. When your top line isn't scoring, your team is not doing its job. You depend on those top line guys for scoring and the supporting cast is supposed to get the supporting goals. Without primary scoring there is no secondary scoring. Again, it is a team effort. Just like if Richards, Carter, and Gagne lit it up and no one else was really contributing, the secondary scoring would be getting some blame.

I just remembered why I stopped commenting on this subject months ago.

You stopped commenting on it because your argument isn't plausible.

They did have primary scoring. Briere set a Finals record for points in a series. More than half the roster scored at least one goal. Briere-Hartnell-Leino had 8 by themselves and it was less than a third of the scoring.

GKJ is offline  
Old
10-02-2010, 03:21 PM
  #128
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 37,252
vCash: 156
offense was in no way the weak link in the finals. goaltending was.

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
10-02-2010, 04:24 PM
  #129
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,364
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
You stopped commenting on it because your argument isn't plausible.

They did have primary scoring. Briere set a Finals record for points in a series. More than half the roster scored at least one goal. Briere-Hartnell-Leino had 8 by themselves and it was less than a third of the scoring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
offense was in no way the weak link in the finals. goaltending was.
You guys are missing the point. It isn't that the team wasn't scoring enough goals. They were. It was that the primary scoring guys weren't. Yes Briere and others had a good series, but when your top three guys aren't scoring, that hurts your team no matter who is scoring. This is a team game. It's great when your secondary scoring puts up great numbers, but when you have no scoring from your primary scorers, it doesn't mean that much. To win the Stanley Cup your entire team needs to play a great game. Not just part. In this series, Richards, Gagne, Carter, Bartulis, Kracijek, and Parent were non-existent and Leighton didn't play well either. You can't win the Stanley Cup if your three best forwards aren't scoring, your third defensive pair is playing < 1 minute a game, and your goalie isn't playing well. It is as simple as that. Those three things alone won't lose a series for you. If Richards, Carter, or Gagne had a better series, the Flyers could have easily won at least one of the one goal games. If the third pair played a normal amount of minutes and were able to actually play defense and not be a horrendous liability on the ice, that would take some pressure off the D Pronger & Co. and could have led to some better defensive showings that could have led to some wins. If Leighton played better yeah the Flyers could have won. But when all three of those things are going wrong, it is all of their faults. Not just Leighton's, not just Richards et al, and not just the third pairing's fault. If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you. There were two one goal games that the Flyers lost. A better showing by Carter or Gagne or Richards in one of them would have had the same impact as a better showing by Leighton. It is not a difficult concept to understand.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
10-02-2010, 04:30 PM
  #130
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
You guys are missing the point. It isn't that the team wasn't scoring enough goals. They were. It was that the primary scoring guys weren't. Yes Briere and others had a good series, but when your top three guys aren't scoring, that hurts your team no matter who is scoring. This is a team game. It's great when your secondary scoring puts up great numbers, but when you have no scoring from your primary scorers, it doesn't mean that much. To win the Stanley Cup your entire team needs to play a great game. Not just part. In this series, Richards, Gagne, Carter, Bartulis, Kracijek, and Parent were non-existent and Leighton didn't play well either. You can't win the Stanley Cup if your three best forwards aren't scoring, your third defensive pair is playing < 1 minute a game, and your goalie isn't playing well. It is as simple as that. Those three things alone won't lose a series for you. If Richards, Carter, or Gagne had a better series, the Flyers could have easily won at least one of the one goal games. If the third pair played a normal amount of minutes and were able to actually play defense and not be a horrendous liability on the ice, that would take some pressure off the D Pronger & Co. and could have led to some better defensive showings that could have led to some wins. If Leighton played better yeah the Flyers could have won. But when all three of those things are going wrong, it is all of their faults. Not just Leighton's, not just Richards et al, and not just the third pairing's fault. If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you. There were two one goal games that the Flyers lost. A better showing by Carter or Gagne or Richards in one of them would have had the same impact as a better showing by Leighton. It is not a difficult concept to understand.
didnt the hawks top line also not have a great series, yet they won. Their entire team didnt play great yet they won. so that theory goes out the window.You are blind.

jb** is offline  
Old
10-02-2010, 04:58 PM
  #131
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,888
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
You guys are missing the point. It isn't that the team wasn't scoring enough goals. They were. It was that the primary scoring guys weren't. Yes Briere and others had a good series, but when your top three guys aren't scoring, that hurts your team no matter who is scoring. This is a team game. It's great when your secondary scoring puts up great numbers, but when you have no scoring from your primary scorers, it doesn't mean that much. To win the Stanley Cup your entire team needs to play a great game. Not just part. In this series, Richards, Gagne, Carter, Bartulis, Kracijek, and Parent were non-existent and Leighton didn't play well either. You can't win the Stanley Cup if your three best forwards aren't scoring, your third defensive pair is playing < 1 minute a game, and your goalie isn't playing well. It is as simple as that. Those three things alone won't lose a series for you. If Richards, Carter, or Gagne had a better series, the Flyers could have easily won at least one of the one goal games. If the third pair played a normal amount of minutes and were able to actually play defense and not be a horrendous liability on the ice, that would take some pressure off the D Pronger & Co. and could have led to some better defensive showings that could have led to some wins. If Leighton played better yeah the Flyers could have won. But when all three of those things are going wrong, it is all of their faults. Not just Leighton's, not just Richards et al, and not just the third pairing's fault. If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you. There were two one goal games that the Flyers lost. A better showing by Carter or Gagne or Richards in one of them would have had the same impact as a better showing by Leighton. It is not a difficult concept to understand.
No, you are missing the point.

If Lukas Krajicek and Oskars Bartulis scored 10 goals a piece in the series, they win also.


You make too excuses for a team who had to win with an AHL goaltender in the Stanley Cup Finals. Go back and look at how many points Toews had. Clue: don't bother starting with goals because he didn't have any.


Last edited by GKJ: 10-02-2010 at 05:08 PM.
GKJ is offline  
Old
10-02-2010, 05:26 PM
  #132
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 37,252
vCash: 156
i dont understand how if the team was scoring enough goals, and they lost, it isn't the goaltender's fault.

is it the top lines's fault because they should have been aware of how bad leighton was, and thus should have stepped up their game further?

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
10-02-2010, 05:29 PM
  #133
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
You guys are missing the point. It isn't that the team wasn't scoring enough goals. They were. It was that the primary scoring guys weren't. Yes Briere and others had a good series, but when your top three guys aren't scoring, that hurts your team no matter who is scoring. This is a team game. It's great when your secondary scoring puts up great numbers, but when you have no scoring from your primary scorers, it doesn't mean that much. To win the Stanley Cup your entire team needs to play a great game. Not just part. In this series, Richards, Gagne, Carter, Bartulis, Kracijek, and Parent were non-existent and Leighton didn't play well either. You can't win the Stanley Cup if your three best forwards aren't scoring, your third defensive pair is playing < 1 minute a game, and your goalie isn't playing well. It is as simple as that. Those three things alone won't lose a series for you. If Richards, Carter, or Gagne had a better series, the Flyers could have easily won at least one of the one goal games. If the third pair played a normal amount of minutes and were able to actually play defense and not be a horrendous liability on the ice, that would take some pressure off the D Pronger & Co. and could have led to some better defensive showings that could have led to some wins. If Leighton played better yeah the Flyers could have won. But when all three of those things are going wrong, it is all of their faults. Not just Leighton's, not just Richards et al, and not just the third pairing's fault. If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you. There were two one goal games that the Flyers lost. A better showing by Carter or Gagne or Richards in one of them would have had the same impact as a better showing by Leighton. It is not a difficult concept to understand.
Wow. That just kind of proves that you'll make any excuse for Leighton (for whatever insane reason(s)). You just said yourself that the offense scored enough to win...and then you go on to complain that some players didn't score enough.

You seriously don't see the contradiction there?

Garbage Goal is online now  
Old
10-02-2010, 05:36 PM
  #134
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,888
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
i dont understand how if the team was scoring enough goals, and they lost, it isn't the goaltender's fault.

is it the top lines's fault because they should have been aware of how bad leighton was, and thus should have stepped up their game further?
It's Lukas Krajicek's fault

GKJ is offline  
Old
10-02-2010, 05:51 PM
  #135
Chicken Chaser
Zaphod Beeblebrox
 
Chicken Chaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. James's Gate
Country: Jersey
Posts: 1,696
vCash: 500
The team should not have let themselves be in a position lose the series because of a miscue by their weakest player. I dont care how many goals we scored in the series, it wasn't enough and our "best" players in game 6 missed their share of opportunities as well in critical moments to save their season. It wasn't just Leighton's fault.

Chicken Chaser is offline  
Old
10-02-2010, 06:22 PM
  #136
Garbage Goal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicken Chaser View Post
The team should not have let themselves be in a position lose the series because of a miscue by their weakest player. I dont care how many goals we scored in the series, it wasn't enough and our "best" players in game 6 missed their share of opportunities as well in critical moments to save their season. It wasn't just Leighton's fault.
You're right. We should have had at least a shooting percentage of 100%. Or they could have at least been decent enough to score 4 goals every game instead of 3.6.

Garbage Goal is online now  
Old
10-02-2010, 06:23 PM
  #137
mirimon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Wrong Town
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
If I had to choose between Niemi and Leighton, I'd take Niemi. I wouldn't want anyone of them though. I think Niitty will be the clear #1 in San Josť before this season's over.

mirimon is offline  
Old
10-02-2010, 06:45 PM
  #138
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 37,252
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicken Chaser View Post
The team should not have let themselves be in a position lose the series because of a miscue by their weakest player. I dont care how many goals we scored in the series, it wasn't enough and our "best" players in game 6 missed their share of opportunities as well in critical moments to save their season. It wasn't just Leighton's fault.
leighton did NOTHING in critical moments to save the season.

example: kane's ****ing goal

Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
10-02-2010, 07:48 PM
  #139
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,364
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
didnt the hawks top line also not have a great series, yet they won. Their entire team didnt play great yet they won. so that theory goes out the window.You are blind.
Their entire to line didn't have a great series, but one of the main guys they look to for production did. Patrick Kane had 10 points. Gagne-Richards-Carter combined for 6 points and -21. There is a huge difference between your top three guys all being pretty much nonexistent and having your best player play like your best player. But yeah good point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
No, you are missing the point.

If Lukas Krajicek and Oskars Bartulis scored 10 goals a piece in the series, they win also.


You make too excuses for a team who had to win with an AHL goaltender in the Stanley Cup Finals. Go back and look at how many points Toews had. Clue: don't bother starting with goals because he didn't have any.
The problem with your Karjicek and Bartulis example is that the team doesn't look for them to score ten goals. The team looks to Richards, Gagne, and Carter for production. As far as your Toews point, see the above post about Patrick Kane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
i dont understand how if the team was scoring enough goals, and they lost, it isn't the goaltender's fault.

is it the top lines's fault because they should have been aware of how bad leighton was, and thus should have stepped up their game further?
Ok maybe I misspoke a little bit. What I should have said was that they would have had no problem scoring enough goals since the secondary scoring was putting up that many goals. But with the primary scoring is not there so it wasn't enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
Wow. That just kind of proves that you'll make any excuse for Leighton (for whatever insane reason(s)). You just said yourself that the offense scored enough to win...and then you go on to complain that some players didn't score enough.

You seriously don't see the contradiction there?
I am not making excuses for Leighton. I have said he didn't play well. I have said he let in soft goals. But you can't just say Leighton lost the series for the team because he didn't. THIS IS A TEAM GAME. If one of Gagne/Richards/Carter (our three best players) had half as many points as Patrick Kane (their best player, at least offensively) this could have easily been a different outcome. But everyone on this board just wants to rip Michael Leighton a new one because his name is Michael Leighton and not Partick Roy and any bad thing that happens to the Flyers is always the goalie's fault no matter what. Mike Richards is blameless. Simon Gagne is blameless. Jeff Carter is blameless. The third pairing is blameless. Of course this is true because in hockey the team doesn't have to play well, only the goalie does and nothing else matters. That is why the Rangers and Canucks have won so many Stanley Cups lately. If the Flyers lost in 7 games all 1-0 games (wins and losses) everyone would still be saying how Michael Leighton is to blame because he is an AHL goaltender. This is a team sport. You win as a team. You lose as a team. If this were tennis and Michael Leighton lost to Patrick Kane, ok then it is Michael Leighton's fault. But this is hockey. I am once again going to back out of this discussion because like I said two or three months ago, you aren't going to change my mind I am not going to change yours.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
10-02-2010, 08:26 PM
  #140
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,888
vCash: 5792
Kane had 10 points. Half of them was after Quennville broke up the line with Toews and Byfuglien. I'll take 5 points in 4 games from their best offensive player. Again, it doesn't fly, dude. You're digging a deeper hole, and wondering why everyone's ganging up on you.

GKJ is offline  
Old
10-02-2010, 08:44 PM
  #141
Chicken Chaser
Zaphod Beeblebrox
 
Chicken Chaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. James's Gate
Country: Jersey
Posts: 1,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garbage Goal View Post
You're right. We should have had at least a shooting percentage of 100%. Or they could have at least been decent enough to score 4 goals every game instead of 3.6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
leighton did NOTHING in critical moments to save the season.

example: kane's ****ing goal
Leighton was exactly what he was advertised to be when we got him. Most of us saw him for what he was when he got here, and played to his credit admirably. Their forwards, outplayed our forwards against mediocre goaltending on both sides, It's not really that hard to see.

Leighton was Leighton.

Chicken Chaser is offline  
Old
10-02-2010, 08:56 PM
  #142
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,364
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Kane had 10 points. Half of them was after Quennville broke up the line with Toews and Byfuglien. I'll take 5 points in 4 games from their best offensive player. Again, it doesn't fly, dude. You're digging a deeper hole, and wondering why everyone's ganging up on you.
So that makes them worth less on the scoreboard? I fail to see why that has anything to do with it. The coach made a move to get a better matchup and their best player took advantage of that. If Richards had those five points, it's a different series.

I honestly don't see what is so difficult to understand about this concept of primary and secondary scoring. Your primary scoring comes from your best offensive players who you rely on to score those primary goals. I don't think anyone would argue that at least Richards and Carter fall into that category and Gagne when healthy would too. Briere, Hartnell, Giroux would fall into that category of secondary scoring. The idea is that you sign/draft/trade for the big money offensive producers so you can lean on them when you need them. You sing/draft/trade for the secondary scoring to throw in some extra goals and be the support to the primary scoring. You need both to be working to win a series. You can't depend on your secondary scoring, that is why it is secondary scoring. It has just as big an impact as a goalie playing poorly when your primary scoring is playing poorly. Please explain to me how this is incorrect.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
10-02-2010, 09:24 PM
  #143
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,888
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
So that makes them worth less on the scoreboard? I fail to see why that has anything to do with it. The coach made a move to get a better matchup and their best player took advantage of that. If Richards had those five points, it's a different series.
No, it puts demerits into your argument and is something that goes beyond the numbers - you gotta actually watch the games to follow that one. Kane went to a different line and his production went accordingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I honestly don't see what is so difficult to understand about this concept of primary and secondary scoring. Your primary scoring comes from your best offensive players who you rely on to score those primary goals. I don't think anyone would argue that at least Richards and Carter fall into that category and Gagne when healthy would too. Briere, Hartnell, Giroux would fall into that category of secondary scoring. The idea is that you sign/draft/trade for the big money offensive producers so you can lean on them when you need them. You sing/draft/trade for the secondary scoring to throw in some extra goals and be the support to the primary scoring. You need both to be working to win a series. You can't depend on your secondary scoring, that is why it is secondary scoring. It has just as big an impact as a goalie playing poorly when your primary scoring is playing poorly. Please explain to me how this is incorrect.
Primary/Secondary scoring not a difficult concept. You're the one who doesn't understand the concept, not us.

Anyways, this topic has ventured so far off. Theodore is not coming here, he signed in Minnesota, the subject matter is no longer on the table. All this other stuff....been there - done that, and I'm sure we'll talk about it enough over the next X-number of years.

GKJ is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.