HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Gagne's Vision Problems

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-17-2010, 04:00 PM
  #51
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Ah, it's pretty terrible if you're a fringe NHL'er that needs to be in games in order to develop into a real NHL'er.
True, but the organization is in no position to give a crap what Oskars likes, needs or wants. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

It's not like it's the old days when Eddie Shore could bury you in the minors forever. He has to learn what he can this year and he'll have a long future as a Flyer - and I hope he does, always liked him.

Homer's other option is to trade him for a prospect on another team who can be sent down and recalled without waivers. I'd rather see how this year goes and then deal with it in the offseason one way or another.

Larry44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2010, 04:02 PM
  #52
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Doesn't tie GMs hands. Most GMs aren't spending $4M on a third pairing D...
And NO other GM has a D like ours either.....

Whine all you want about it, but the cheap contracts we've signed to so many of our fowards and goalie and O'Donnell make it possible to allocate a lot of resources to the D this year.

It's the plan, and it's working.

Whine away....

Larry44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2010, 04:09 PM
  #53
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Doesn't tie GMs hands. Most GMs aren't spending $4M on a third pairing D...
Putting aside Homer's plan to have an overabundance of roster depth on the roster... the earlier age/years players have to go through waivers, the more a GM has his hands are tied in flexibility... whether it be on D, or F or goal. Not arguing the merits of not allowing team to stockpile... just saying that GMs have less options.

Bart's not really being helped by the rules in this case though... He may be stagnating when he could be playing in Adirondack.

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2010, 04:13 PM
  #54
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44 View Post
And NO other GM has a D like ours either.....

Whine all you want about it, but the cheap contracts we've signed to so many of our fowards and goalie and O'Donnell make it possible to allocate a lot of resources to the D this year.

It's the plan, and it's working.

Whine away....
Who's whining? I'm noting that a young player is possibly having his NHL development derailed, and they are doing a disservice to him -- and potentially to themselves if he fails to develop into a viable and cheap 3rd pairing guy.

The constant harping about the Flyers struggling to develop AHL players into NHL players... well, this is why. They rarely carve out the spot for those guys to get a chance to blossom at the NHL level. So, next year when we lose O'Donnell and we have to trade one of Carle, Coburn, and Mezsaros... what then?

So, sure run out the emotionless robot argument... sorry, but I think it's wrong to do that to Bartulis. Should have traded him. Of course, it also appears that Holmgren simply didn't understand the waiver rules if you were paying attention over the summer.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2010, 04:33 PM
  #55
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 14,019
vCash: 955
Jester, why such a strong defense of Bart?

He's the 8th defenseman on the depth chart and Laviolette had no confidence in him in the past. I don't want him playing over any of the 6 guys we have in the line-up at the moment.

Injuries happen and he's a guy who can fill in when they pop up. He might be a cheap 3rd pair option down the road, but he has no place on this team as long as the top 6 are healthy.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2010, 04:52 PM
  #56
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
Jester, why such a strong defense of Bart?

He's the 8th defenseman on the depth chart and Laviolette had no confidence in him in the past. I don't want him playing over any of the 6 guys we have in the line-up at the moment.

Injuries happen and he's a guy who can fill in when they pop up. He might be a cheap 3rd pair option down the road, but he has no place on this team as long as the top 6 are healthy.
I'm not defending his current level of play, or suggesting he should be playing over the guys we have on the roster. Just that he isn't going to develop as a player from the press box, and that's a disservice to him. Young players need to be playing in games and honing their craft, and he's stuck in a situation where he isn't getting the necessary reps.

Dick move by Holmgren.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2010, 04:55 PM
  #57
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 14,019
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I'm not defending his current level of play, or suggesting he should be playing over the guys we have on the roster. Just that he isn't going to develop as a player from the press box, and that's a disservice to him. Young players need to be playing in games and honing their craft, and he's stuck in a situation where he isn't getting the necessary reps.

Dick move by Holmgren.
Gotcha. I thought you were suggesting he should be in the lineup. Thanks for the clarification.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 09:38 AM
  #58
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,385
vCash: 500
Again I love the double standards. When Hitchcock wasn't allowing young players to come up and develop on the backline b/c he preferred the vets it was argued that it's just the "way it goes" sometimes when you're trying to win now. So Clarke traded players like Eaton etc b/c we couldn't find a place for them on the roster to develop. It was about the here and now. I guess Clarke wasn't a dick but Holmgren is?

I don't necessarily disagree with the point that you want to develop your D men, it just that if you want to be consistent with your arguments you don't trot out the double standards consistently....

BTW..Vandermeer was similar to Bartulis when he was in the organization. Eaton and a number of young D men were traded away when we had Barber and Hitchcock in particular at the helm.


Last edited by FreshPerspective: 11-18-2010 at 09:50 AM.
FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 10:07 AM
  #59
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
Again I love the double standards. When Hitchcock wasn't allowing young players to come up and develop on the backline b/c he preferred the vets it was argued that it's just the "way it goes" sometimes when you're trying to win now. So Clarke traded players like Eaton etc b/c we couldn't find a place for them on the roster to develop. It was about the here and now. I guess Clarke wasn't a dick but Holmgren is?

I don't necessarily disagree with the point that you want to develop your D men, it just that if you want to be consistent with your arguments you don't trot out the double standards consistently....

BTW..Vandermeer was similar to Bartulis when he was in the organization. Eaton and a number of young D men were traded away when we had Barber and Hitchcock in particular at the helm.
Think about that comment, and get back to me.

There's a difference between running a vet lineup and having guys in the AHL... and running a vet lineup and having a young developing player sitting in the press box every damn night.

Moreover, the complaint with Hitch was that he didn't give guys big minutes... not that he didn't have them in the lineup.

Mark Eaton:

Played 27 games with the Flyers in '99-00, and 47 games with the Phantoms (74 games in total). He was then traded to the Predators... he split time again the following year, getting in 68 combined games.

Vandermeer:

24 games with the Flyers in '02-'03, and 48 games with the Phantoms (72 games in total). Was traded the following year to Chicago, and played 46 games in the NHL and 26 games with the Phantoms.

Freddy Meyer:

Went pro at 23, played in 1 Flyers game, and 59 Phantoms games. Following year played 57 games with the Flyers and 11 Phantoms games (post-lockout season). Got traded to the Islanders the following year.

So on and so forth.

Moreover, if you're going to accuse me of a *ing double standard, find me arguing that there wasn't a problem when/if Clarke was doing it. You kind of need that as evidence to make that accusation, no?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 10:10 AM
  #60
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Moreover, if you're going to accuse me of a *ing double standard, find me arguing that there wasn't a problem when/if Clarke was doing it. You kind of need that as evidence to make that accusation, no?
Dude what were you like between 3-8 years old when Clark was a GM during the 80's and early 90's? Seriously man arguing with you about Clarke is futile b/c practically your entire perception of him was from what you have read in your later years not what some of us older fans actually experienced. Also arguing with a guy who is never effin wrong b/c he's so afraid of being wrong is also futile. Must be a very stressful life you live...

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 10:20 AM
  #61
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
Dude what were you like between 3-8 years old when Clark was a GM during the 80's and early 90's? Seriously man arguing with you about Clarke is futile b/c practically your entire perception of him was from what you have read in your later years not what some of us older fans actually experienced. Also arguing with a guy who is never effin wrong b/c he's so afraid of being wrong is also futile. Must be a very stressful life you live...
Ah, I'm almost 30 dude. Have a pretty clear perception on the entire tenure of Clarke's campaign in the 90s. (Especially given that you referenced Hitchcock and Barber, who were the coaches when I was in college and after college... and had season tickets.)

However, once again you made a completely baseless and BS claim -- accusing me of a double standard which you cannot prove -- and rather than man up and own it, you lash out.

You accuse me of never being wrong? Look in the mirror dude. I don't wander around making claims about other folks opinions that are completely baseless and full of ****. And rather than actually own up to that, you start bragging about your gray pubes.

So congrats on being older. What you said was still ignorant, and being old don't change that.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 10:30 AM
  #62
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Ah, I'm almost 30 dude. Have a pretty clear perception on the entire tenure of Clarke's campaign in the 90s. (Especially given that you referenced Hitchcock and Barber, who were the coaches when I was in college and after college... and had season tickets.)

However, once again you made a completely baseless and BS claim -- accusing me of a double standard which you cannot prove -- and rather than man up and own it, you lash out.

You accuse me of never being wrong? Look in the mirror dude. I don't wander around making claims about other folks opinions that are completely baseless and full of ****. And rather than actually own up to that, you start bragging about your gray pubes.

So congrats on being older. What you said was still ignorant, and being old don't change that.
Sorry dude..but it's not a baseless claim. You made the reference when we were discussing Sharp, Williams etc that when you are trying to win you have to play your veterans and "it's the way it goes." This claim is not limited to the offense but the D and that's exactly what happened under Clarke's tenure but you never mention him to be a dick just that everybody's else's criticism of Clarke is "flawed" when you haven't experienced his full tenure as some of us have. So congrats on trying to weasel yourself out of another argument through your typical selective and circular reasoning.

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 10:38 AM
  #63
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
Sorry dude..but it's not a baseless claim. You made the reference when we were discussing Sharp, Williams etc that when you are trying to win you have to play your veterans and "it's the way it goes." This claim is not limited to the offense but the D and that's exactly what happened under Clarke's tenure but you never mention him to be a dick just that everybody's else's criticism of Clarke is "flawed" when you haven't experienced his full tenure as some of us have. So congrats on trying to weasel yourself out of another argument through your typical selective and circular reasoning.
Patrick Sharp in the Flyers organization:

'02-'03: 56 GP, the majority with the Phantoms (which Bartulis cannot do)
'03-'04: 76 GP, split between the two teams (which Bartulis cannot do)
'04-'05 (lockout): 75 GP with the Phantoms (plus Calder Cup)
'05-'06: traded after 22 GP, 72 total in the NHL.

Justin Williams:

'00-'01: 63 GP in the NHL (at age 19)
'01-'02: 75 GP in the NHL (at age 20)
'02-'03: 41 GP (injured)
'03-'04: 47 GP and traded 79 total.

OK, so I'm beginning to sense that you don't seem to grasp the difference between a player getting limited minutes (which means he's in games at the NHL level) and a guy sitting in the press box (which means he is not in games at the NHL level). Somehow you are conflating this to me saying it isn't fair to Bartulis that he isn't getting in games right now, regardless of level.

If you cannot see the difference between these two things... then you cannot be helped. Sorry.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 10:56 AM
  #64
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Patrick Sharp in the Flyers organization:

'02-'03: 56 GP, the majority with the Phantoms (which Bartulis cannot do)
'03-'04: 76 GP, split between the two teams (which Bartulis cannot do)
'04-'05 (lockout): 75 GP with the Phantoms (plus Calder Cup)
'05-'06: traded after 22 GP, 72 total in the NHL.

Justin Williams:

'00-'01: 63 GP in the NHL (at age 19)
'01-'02: 75 GP in the NHL (at age 20)
'02-'03: 41 GP (injured)
'03-'04: 47 GP and traded 79 total.

OK, so I'm beginning to sense that you don't seem to grasp the difference between a player getting limited minutes (which means he's in games at the NHL level) and a guy sitting in the press box (which means he is not in games at the NHL level). Somehow you are conflating this to me saying it isn't fair to Bartulis that he isn't getting in games right now, regardless of level.

If you cannot see the difference between these two things... then you cannot be helped. Sorry.
This made me laugh.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 12:57 PM
  #65
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Patrick Sharp in the Flyers organization:

'02-'03: 56 GP, the majority with the Phantoms (which Bartulis cannot do)
'03-'04: 76 GP, split between the two teams (which Bartulis cannot do)
'04-'05 (lockout): 75 GP with the Phantoms (plus Calder Cup)
'05-'06: traded after 22 GP, 72 total in the NHL.

Justin Williams:

'00-'01: 63 GP in the NHL (at age 19)
'01-'02: 75 GP in the NHL (at age 20)
'02-'03: 41 GP (injured)
'03-'04: 47 GP and traded 79 total.

OK, so I'm beginning to sense that you don't seem to grasp the difference between a player getting limited minutes (which means he's in games at the NHL level) and a guy sitting in the press box (which means he is not in games at the NHL level). Somehow you are conflating this to me saying it isn't fair to Bartulis that he isn't getting in games right now, regardless of level.

If you cannot see the difference between these two things... then you cannot be helped. Sorry.
Typical selective reasoning once again.

The double standard I speak of is when you mock people for criticising Clarke (even though you experienced maybe one third of his GM career at a non prepubescent period of your life) and say they are flawed when it is a fact that under his tenure the Flyers did a very poor job of developing defensemen within their system whether they sat them in the press box, played limited minutes, put in the doghouse, not valued by coaches b/c veterans took precendence etc etc. If you want to continue to base your particular argument on one variable instead as an aggregate well it seem you are the one whose neurons aren't firing on all cyclinders..but maybe another decade will help so you can make more connections.....

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 02:05 PM
  #66
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
Typical selective reasoning once again.

The double standard I speak of is when you mock people for criticising Clarke (even though you experienced maybe one third of his GM career at a non prepubescent period of your life) and say they are flawed when it is a fact that under his tenure the Flyers did a very poor job of developing defensemen within their system whether they sat them in the press box, played limited minutes, put in the doghouse, not valued by coaches b/c veterans took precendence etc etc. If you want to continue to base your particular argument on one variable instead as an aggregate well it seem you are the one whose neurons aren't firing on all cyclinders..but maybe another decade will help so you can make more connections.....
Dude, what the F are you talking about? In all your years of aged experience, did you not learn how to make some simple sense?

1) I didn't state ANYTHING about Clarke in the post above to which you referred to a double standard.

2) You cannot cite a single *ing quote by me that states that I hold that position about Clarke's tenure with regard to developing defenseman.

So, you're still spouting a completely ignorant opinion based on groundless BS... which you did at the very outset. And rather than man the **** up and own it, you come with this nonsensical crap trying to change the subject to that of the mid 1990s... while at the same time putting forward that you apparently hit puberty really really late if you think it starts when you're 16. Clarke returned to Philly in '94-'95, when I was 14... So I was well past puberty for the vast majority of his tenure. Hell, I was in *ing college or graduated for the majority of his second tenure.

Also... you clearly don't understand what "selective reasoning" is. You cited two names, and I addressed those two names displaying that what you wrote was stupid.

Again, if you cannot tell the *ing difference between what you are saying and what I said, that's your own cognitive reasoning skills coming into play. Maybe it's dementia, I don't know.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 02:10 PM
  #67
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Dude, what the F are you talking about? In all your years of aged experience, did you not learn how to make some simple sense?

1) I didn't state ANYTHING about Clarke in the post above to which you referred to a double standard.

2) You cannot cite a single *ing quote by me that states that I hold that position about Clarke's tenure with regard to developing defenseman.

So, you're still spouting a completely ignorant opinion based on groundless BS... which you did at the very outset. And rather than man the **** up and own it, you come with this nonsensical crap trying to change the subject to that of the mid 1990s... while at the same time putting forward that you apparently hit puberty really really late if you think it starts when you're 16.

Also... you clearly don't understand what "selective reasoning" is. You cited two names, and I addressed those two names displaying that what you wrote was stupid.

Again, if you cannot tell the *ing difference between what you are saying and what I said, that's your own cognitive reasoning skills coming into play. Maybe it's dementia, I don't know.
Seethe Seethe...

Jester the HFBoards Molester never says anything stupid or flawed....I know I know.


So how long before they "figure Giroux out" dude?

Anyway, this is futile. You can go to bed tonight thinking once again you are right if it makes you happy....

BTW: Clarke's tenure started in the 80's...I hit puberty in the 1980's while you were eating your snots so this isn't just about experiencing Clarke in the early 90's as again you want to limit the argument to. Also you have been on record as saying people who criticise Clarke are FLAWED and basically idiots when again you've experience 1/3 of his career as GM to pass any kind of decent unbiased judgement. Also in the past I have argued a lot of reasons why Clarke was not all that you make him out to be and one of them is not developing D men and getting an effin goalie. You just never acknowledged this b/c it would challenge your biased view of Clarke. Clarke also never had to deal with a cap and had Comcast's coffers to buy himself out of mistakes and even that didn't work all too well.


Last edited by FreshPerspective: 11-18-2010 at 02:26 PM.
FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 02:30 PM
  #68
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
Seethe Seethe...

Jester the HFBoards Molester never says anything stupid or flawed....I know I know.
Ha.

It's easy to avoid saying stupid **** when you think about what you say before you say it. Like, you know, stating a series of stupid player comparison that prove you don't know what the **** you are talking about?

Eaton, Vandermeer, Sharp, Williams... none of 'em were ever in the situation Bartulis was in, yet you brought 'em up.

Stupid and flawed statements that you aren't man enough to own. But you know, deflect that with very mature statements like calling me a "molester." Seriously?

Quote:
So how long before they "figure Giroux out" dude?

Anyway, this is futile. You can go to bed tonight thinking once again you are right if it makes you happy....
It's only futile when you use BS and or outright completely false stuff to back up what you're stating... paired with obviously incorrect comparison between two quite different statements.

Figure him out... I would say teams have begun to as his goal scoring rate has dropped a bit. Hasn't had a shorty since that game against Pittsburgh -- in fact, teams are starting to be careful against us on their PP like what happened a couple years ago when we started out the year with a bunch of SHGs. He still only has 2 ES goals (on pace for 8.6). He, like everyone, has been benefiting from the team slaughtering some folks with the assists, but that will level out.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 02:41 PM
  #69
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
BTW: Clarke's tenure started in the 80's...I hit puberty in the 1980's while you were eating your snots so this isn't just about experiencing Clarke in the early 90's as again you want to limit the argument to. Also you have been on record as saying people who criticise Clarke are FLAWED and basically idiots when again you've experience 1/3 of his career as GM to pass any kind of decent unbiased judgement. Also in the past I have argued a lot of reasons why Clarke was not all that you make him out to be and one of them is not developing D men and getting an effin goalie. You just never acknowledged this b/c it would challenge your biased view of Clarke. Clarke also never had to deal with a cap and had Comcast's coffers to buy himself out of mistakes and even that didn't work all too well.
This is entertaining.

By this line of reasoning all history books are invalid material.

1) Please find a single quote by me concerning Clarke and stating that he was great on the goalie situation... or D for that matter.

2) Please find a single quote by me that doesn't acknowledge the significant difference between pre-cap Flyers operation post-cap Flyers operation (Note: I find this accusation particularly entertaining, because I make a point of noting the significant difference all the damn time).

3) You accused me of a "double standard" above with ZERO evidence to support that statement. You then attempted to back up that statement by referencing a discussion that has NOTHING to do with the point that you were accusing of being a double standard. From there, you turned the topic into a discussion of Bob *ing Clarke's tenure as GM dating back to the 80s, which, again, had nothing to do with the supposed double standard.

The reality is that you like to talk out of your ass. This leads to you saying certifiably false things (like Vandermeer was in the same situation as Bartulis: he wasn't... at all), because you have no evidence to support what you are saying. When that gets pointed out to you, rather than own what you said you deflect the topic away from that... and what is entertaining here is the hypocrisy of you accusing me of not admitting my errors.

In this thread, you said something stupid. You said something entirely inaccurate and made an incorrect characterization of what I stated and my opinion. Rather than be a man and own it, you started babbling about how old you are and topics that were and remain completely irrelevant to what was the original topic.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 02:41 PM
  #70
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Ha.

It's easy to avoid saying stupid **** when you think about what you say before you say it. Like, you know, stating a series of stupid player comparison that prove you don't know what the **** you are talking about?

Eaton, Vandermeer, Sharp, Williams... none of 'em were ever in the situation Bartulis was in, yet you brought 'em up.

Stupid and flawed statements that you aren't man enough to own. But you know, deflect that with very mature statements like calling me a "molester." Seriously?



It's only futile when you use BS and or outright completely false stuff to back up what you're stating... paired with obviously incorrect comparison between two quite different statements.

Figure him out... I would say teams have begun to as his goal scoring rate has dropped a bit. Hasn't had a shorty since that game against Pittsburgh -- in fact, teams are starting to be careful against us on their PP like what happened a couple years ago when we started out the year with a bunch of SHGs. He still only has 2 ES goals (on pace for 8.6). He, like everyone, has been benefiting from the team slaughtering some folks with the assists, but that will level out.
Seriously what part about me calling you out on having a double standard with respect to Holmgren vs Clarke are you not getting? Clarke was just as wrong in the manner in which he handled the development of d players and young players in general as the way Homgren is dealing with Bartulis or allowing Lavy to relegate to the press box. This is what I'm trying to point out b/c you ripped into Holmgren in one of your posts which I didn't necessarily disagree with. It just irks me that you continue to blow off what Clarke did and didn't do and then stick it to Holmgren for doing similar things but actually not as bad as far as player development. Clarke got canned back in his first tenure Jr Snider for allowing the team to age and atrophy..was this because he was good according to you? Then he basically was canned the last time although he said he quit and Snider Sr said we were going to develop our team properly with youth etc until Holmgren went off that promise a bit with the Pronger trade but now is being covered with the likes of Giroux, Leino and Bob.

Finally, your comments on Giroux still show you want to be right in the end. I mean c'mon when will you give this guy any benefit of your many doubts?

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 02:45 PM
  #71
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
BTW: I don't have to pick out a single quote on all those points b/c your single quote that people who criticise Clarke are FLAWED and then cite what he did in Minnesota and Florida completely shows how FLAWED your own reasoning is with making such a blanket statement. If you don't see this then yeah you can't be helped
This is what I'm talking about specifically about your double standard with respect to Clarke and Holmgren! What don't you get man? You can twist away but it doesn't change the fact that you are constantly on record criticizing people who say Clarke was FLAWED when you yourself admit it by saying you've addressed him essentially being flawed for not developing D men and getting a goalie during the years you could jerk off with satisfaction. Which is it man? Is Clarke flawed or not? If he is flawed then why do you keep sayin other people who criticise him as a GM are the ones FLAWED? Seems like cognitive dissonance on your part?

So Holmgren is the only idiot? All I ever see is you defending Clarke when clearly and by your own admission he was flawed as GM and quite frankly almost worse than Holmgren b/c he got canned essentially twice even though he said he quit in the season we don't speak of.


Last edited by FreshPerspective: 11-18-2010 at 03:04 PM.
FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 02:49 PM
  #72
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
Seriously what part about me calling you out on having a double standard with respect to Holmgren vs Clarke are you not getting?
1) The part where you have ZERO evidence to support that claim, and have yet to provide it.

2) The part where how you did attempt to provide evidence supporting that claim merely proved that your critical reasoning was lacking for someone your age.

Quote:
Clarke was just as wrong in the manner in which he handled the development of d players and young players in general as the way Homgren is dealing with Bartulis or allowing Lavy to relegate to the press box.
Great. Provide examples. NONE of the examples you have provided have proven to accurately reflect that belief. However, even then, that does not imply a double standard. A "double standard" would be me stating that it was fine when Clarke put a young developing player in a position where they could not play hockey games.

Again, that you cannot understand that is on you, not me. Sorry.

Quote:
This is what I'm trying to point out b/c you ripped into Holmgren in one of your posts which I didn't necessarily disagree with. It just irks me that you continue to blow off what Clarke did and didn't do and then stick it to Holmgren for doing similar things but actually not as bad as far as player development. Clarke got canned back in his first tenure Jr Snider for allowing the team to age and atrophy..was this because he was good according to you? Then he basically was canned the last time although he said he quit and Snider Sr said we were going to develop our team properly with youth etc until Holmgren went off that promise a bit with the Pronger trade but now is being covered with the likes of Giroux, Leino and Bob.
Listen, man, you need to back up the crap you state with some kind of empirical proof. Because you say it is so, doesn't make it so. Clarke getting canned, the tenure of Jr, etc. has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you are claiming was a double standard on my part. NOTHING.

All you're doing is dissembling over the fact that you stating I was holding Holmgren to a double standard is simply... not true. Because you have no evidence of the fact that I wouldn't criticize Clarke for doing the same *ing thing.

Quote:
Finally, your comments on Giroux still show you want to be right in the end. I mean c'mon when will you give this guy any benefit of your many doubts?
The season ain't 20 games old, man. Have you not looked at the league scoring leaders? That **** is going to change. Nowhere have I ever said I don't expect Giroux to have a very good season, but the dude ain't scoring 40+ goals.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 02:55 PM
  #73
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
This is clearly entertaining..you who are some supposed master thespian and history major totally blow off the fact that there is such a thing as historical revisionism and that the judgement of history oftentimes depends on who writes it. You are very good at revisionism and twisting things. Seriously, you and your condescending attitude is what is irritating. Again what a scary existence you must live to have to worry about never being wrong.
Yeah, kind of aware of all of that. However, what you wrote essentially invalidates all history because those folks didn't live it and see it with their own two eyes... that we know nothing past anyone that lived it, and anyone who didn't cannot have a valid opinion.

Just because you lived it, does not mean you have an accurate perception of it.

Sort of like your comparison of Vandermeer to Bartulis, which proved to be completely false. Maybe we should question all of your memories, then?

Quote:
BTW: I don't have to pick out a single quote on all those points b/c your single quote that people who criticise Clarke are FLAWED and then cite what he did in Minnesota and Florida completely shows how FLAWED your own reasoning is with making such a blanket statement. If you don't see this then yeah you can't be helped
Because you're right. You can say whatever you want, without any support whatsoever... and it's fine, because you're right.

You call my attitude condescending? Seriously... look in the mirror.

It's shocking that you think stating someone was good at their job equates to them not having warts. Clarke certainly had his warts... he was terrible at handling the PR of the job, was overly committed to size mattering, never addressed the situation in goal and built a philosophy of "goalie is a crapshoot" into the organization, etc.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 03:19 PM
  #74
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Yeah, kind of aware of all of that. However, what you wrote essentially invalidates all history because those folks didn't live it and see it with their own two eyes... that we know nothing past anyone that lived it, and anyone who didn't cannot have a valid opinion.

Just because you lived it, does not mean you have an accurate perception of it.

Sort of like your comparison of Vandermeer to Bartulis, which proved to be completely false. Maybe we should question all of your memories, then?



Because you're right. You can say whatever you want, without any support whatsoever... and it's fine, because you're right.

You call my attitude condescending? Seriously... look in the mirror.

It's shocking that you think stating someone was good at their job equates to them not having warts. Clarke certainly had his warts... he was terrible at handling the PR of the job, was overly committed to size mattering, never addressed the situation in goal and built a philosophy of "goalie is a crapshoot" into the organization, etc.
I equated Vandermeer with Bartulis in the sense that he was essentially a 7th D man on the team like Bart. You are reading into it way too much. As a 7th D man he wasn't given a chance to properly develop for many reasons but yes I agree it wasn't as bad as Bart being dicked necessarily since he got more minutes than what Bart is getting. But again this about BOTH Holmgren and Clarke just not handling player development right on the backend in particular although now maybe that is changing with some prospects but we shall see. Seidenberg was never given a good shot IMO and now he's pretty solid for Boston.

Anyway, this is my argument. I just wish IN GENERAL dude that whenever somebody criticizes Clarke you don't rush to his defense since as your last post shows he clearly had his FLAWS thus you cannot say people are flawed in their criticism of him.

Finally, what I'm saying doesn't invalidate history it's just that as you know historians that actually lived through a period are still primary source references and yes their interpretations may be flawed but they still take precedence over secondary sources that may be getting their interpretations from revisionist sources or maybe some ideological bias.

Dude man, look you're a pretty smart guy just stop being so pedantic sometimes and acknowledge other people's good points more often rather than only attacking their weaker points. I'll admit I get like that but I do realize it's not cool sometimes. Anyway, bygones.....look forward to more debate....

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2010, 03:32 PM
  #75
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Minutes are irrelevant. Vandermeer played in 72 hockey games the first year he was getting games with the Flyers, the majority of which were played with the Phantoms. If Bartulis was playing 10-15 minutes a game, I would have zero problem with what was going on here... he isn't. If he was playing 20 a night in the AHL, I'd have no problem with it.

He isn't.

So, DrDoom, what I would like from you is evidence that I said the following, "I am perfectly fine with Bob Clarke putting a young player in a position where he cannot play in hockey games during key developmental years."

If you can find that, I will apologize and admit that I am holding Holmgren to a double standard with regard to that. If not, I expect an apology from you.

If you want to get into a discussion of the Flyers doing a horrible job of carving out space for AHLer dating back to Clarke's tenure, there is no debate from me. Actually, I pretty much directly referenced that in the original observation with regard to Bartulis. Flyers have had a tendency to only begrudgingly build space into their lineups for young players and that makes it hard for them to blossom here... they lack patience and trade 'em away before they have a chance to become anything. At times that has made sense (Patrick Sharp playing above the 3rd/4th line), at others it doesn't (making a spot for a young D to start the year as your 6th and see what happens).

And just because Clarke had flaws, does not mean the folks making arguments critical of Clarke don't have flaws in their argument. These are not mutually exclusive things. People act as if Clarke had no success with this team, and only had success here because of his monetary resources. Neither of these observations is true... as his tenure elsewhere demonstrated.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 08:36 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.