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

Claude Giroux: Franchise Player...?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-23-2011, 11:29 AM
  #26
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
You're over complicating it. Franchise player = most important player to your team. The player that if you lost, would have the most impact to the team's bottom line.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 11:56 AM
  #27
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
You're over complicating it. Franchise player = most important player to your team. The player that if you lost, would have the most impact to the team's bottom line.
Which has become Eric Staal.

Eric Staal is their franchise player. Rod Brind'Amour was. Staal supplanted him in his last year and then replaced him when he retired.

The argument really is invalid when you're talking about franchise players over two decades. It has nothing to do with Richards vs. Giroux.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 11:58 AM
  #28
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
Which has become Eric Staal.

Eric Staal is their franchise player. Rod Brind'Amour was. Staal supplanted him in his last year and then replaced him when he retired.

The argument really is invalid when you're talking about franchise players over two decades. It has nothing to do with Richards vs. Giroux.
Ah, but it is valid if you're making a comparison between Brind'Amour's role in Carolina under Lavi, and Richards role here in comparison to Giroux (who is what, 3 years younger than him?).

As said, you're over complicating the point and putting it into a narrative well beyond what is a valid observation. 15 years from now, someone else will be the Flyers franchise player...

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 12:08 PM
  #29
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Ah, but it is valid if you're making a comparison between Brind'Amour's role in Carolina under Lavi, and Richards role here in comparison to Giroux (who is what, 3 years younger than him?).

As said, you're over complicating the point and putting it into a narrative well beyond what is a valid observation. 15 years from now, someone else will be the Flyers franchise player...
It's really not though.

Staal was young and inexperienced at that time. It says nothing about two-way forward vs. offensive forward as a franchise player, which is how you're trying to use it...now that Staal is a dominant force, if you put him on that 2006 team, maybe he's the one playing the larger role?

I know what you're saying, and sure, Richards is the franchise player over Giroux, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Lavi's use of Brind'Amour and Staal 5 years ago...

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 12:10 PM
  #30
kicksave27
Registered User
 
kicksave27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,255
vCash: 500
I don't know that any of the Flyers forwards are a "franchise player". They have alot of really good/quasi allstar players. Which is good, since you can't focus on stopping one guy like Ovy or Crosby. Last legit franchise guy for the Flyers would be Lindros.

kicksave27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 12:12 PM
  #31
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
It's really not though.

Staal was young and inexperienced at that time. It says nothing about two-way forward vs. offensive forward as a franchise player, which is how you're trying to use it...now that Staal is a dominant force, if you put him on that 2006 team, maybe he's the one playing the larger role?

I know what you're saying, and sure, Richards is the franchise player over Giroux, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Lavi's use of Brind'Amour and Staal 5 years ago...
You're aware that Staal had the best season of his career that year, right? He posted 45-55-100... he was a dominant force. He also put up 28 points in 25 playoff games en route to the SC.

Brind'Amour was more important to that team.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 12:13 PM
  #32
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kicksave27 View Post
I don't know that any of the Flyers forwards are a "franchise player". They have alot of really good/quasi allstar players. Which is good, since you can't focus on stopping one guy like Ovy or Crosby. Last legit franchise guy for the Flyers would be Lindros.
Richards is a franchise guy, just cut from a different mold than the offense-first franchise guy that people are so used to.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 12:17 PM
  #33
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
You're aware that Staal had the best season of his career that year, right? He posted 45-55-100... he was a dominant force. He also put up 28 points in 25 playoff games en route to the SC.

Brind'Amour was more important to that team.
He was still only in his second year with the team...he was being groomed to become the franchise player. Sentimentally and defensively that team needed Brind'Amour, yes, but it has nothing to do with some universal, intrinsic value of the Brind'Amour/Richards role being more important than the point getter, which is why it was brought into this discussion.

It's just not the same thing. One could argue that without Staal, that team goes nowhere, even if Brind'Amour was the face of that team. And since Staal has since taken on his mantle, the value of one or the other as a 'franchise player' is hard to contrast and irrelevant.

It's just a random talking point that really has no bearing on Richards and Giroux...

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 12:22 PM
  #34
Snipsnap12
Registered User
 
Snipsnap12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Richards is a franchise guy, just cut from a different mold than the offense-first franchise guy that people are so used to.
ya other than a few teams he would be other teams entire franchise

Snipsnap12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 12:23 PM
  #35
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
He was still only in his second year with the team...he was being groomed to become the franchise player. Sentimentally and defensively that team needed Brind'Amour, yes, but it has nothing to do with some universal, intrinsic value of the Brind'Amour/Richards role being more important than the point getter, which is why it was brought into this discussion.

It's just not the same thing. One could argue that without Staal, that team goes nowhere, even if Brind'Amour was the face of that team. And since Staal has since taken on his mantle, the value of one or the other as a 'franchise player' is hard to contrast and irrelevant.

It's just a random talking point that really has no bearing on Richards and Giroux...
It's not random. Cartsiephan had a specific thesis: Brind'Amour adopted less of a scoring role, and more of a matchup role and, therefore, his value to the team was diminished. He was stating that the same thing is happening with Richards here, and, therefore, his value is diminished to the likes of a guy like Giroux.

He was making a direct comparison to roles on a hockey club, and making an argument about where Richards/Giroux slotted into that relationship, with a valuation of those roles to the team attached. However, it was a flawed argument because it assumed that Brind'Amour in that role wasn't the most important player on that team even as he slid into that role.

Hell, Primeau was the most important player here when he slid into that role and gave up scoring as much.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 01:53 PM
  #36
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Blaine View Post
I wouldn't even put Mez out there right now. Let Richards be the other point guy, he's plain dirty there. Get JvR/that other random forward some more time, split up Briere and Giroux more, and just start moving the damn puck quicker.
Richards helps you offensively at the point, but he's also a turnover machine and very risky back there. The other teams gets at least one great scoring chance shorthanded for every two times Richards plays the point.

John Flyers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 01:55 PM
  #37
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan View Post
Richards helps you offensively at the point, but he's also a turnover machine and very risky back there. The other teams gets at least one great scoring chance shorthanded for every two times Richards plays the point.
I think some of it is that he hasn't been doing it as much as he used to... a couple of years ago he wasn't that risky.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 03:40 PM
  #38
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
He's clearly improved... he couldn't make the team out of camp a couple years ago.

As discussed in the 100 pt thread a couple weeks ago or whatever, those expectations are rather lofty given Giroux's age and what he's done to this point. The fact of the matter is that he's in his prime scoring years right now. There might be some improvement going forward, but it's a big leap from 75 pt pace (22 guys last year) to 100 pts (4 guys). And remember, smaller players tend to develop faster than bigger guys.
The first statement is totally out of context though. Giroux didn't make the team out of camp because he had his wisdom teeth out right before the start of the season. If you don't think something like that effects you, you have'nt had them removed. If they were impacted, all he would of been able to eat was ice cream and milkshakes. I believe he lost a lot of weight too. Then went on a tear a few weeks later in the AHL.

Giroux is every bit as important as Richards on this team. Also, you use Giroux playing with Carter as an advantage to Giroux. Carter has always been a shoot first player, and always will be. He also dominates the puck on his shifts, and has been a one man army( apart from the last couple of games to be fair).

I think Giroux production is being hurt by playing with Carter

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 03:55 PM
  #39
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
The first statement is totally out of context though. Giroux didn't make the team out of camp because he had his wisdom teeth out right before the start of the season. If you don't think something like that effects you, you have'nt had them removed. If they were impacted, all he would of been able to eat was ice cream and milkshakes. I believe he lost a lot of weight too. Then went on a tear a few weeks later in the AHL.
Ah, he wasn't good enough... can come up with whatever reason you want. He wasn't good enough. He wasn't the player he is now the latter half of that year, and he wasn't the player he is now for the majority of last year.

He's improved.

Quote:
Giroux is every bit as important as Richards on this team. Also, you use Giroux playing with Carter as an advantage to Giroux. Carter has always been a shoot first player, and always will be. He also dominates the puck on his shifts, and has been a one man army( apart from the last couple of games to be fair).

I think Giroux production is being hurt by playing with Carter
You seriously think Carter is hurting Giroux's production more than Nodl, JVR, Zherdev, and Carcillo have hurt Richards'? Seriously?

Carter has been this teams best ES forward for a few years now.

And, no, Giroux is not every bit as important to this team as Richards... Richards remains our best all-around forward by a long shot. When it comes time to take on tough defensive responsibilities, that's still Richards' job... all while putting up similar point totals to Giroux.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 05:27 PM
  #40
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
You seriously think Carter is hurting Giroux's production more than Nodl, JVR, Zherdev, and Carcillo have hurt Richards'? Seriously?
It's sucking the life out of his point totals. I hope it doesn't hurt his chances to get into the HOF. It actually bothers me.

He may have to compensate with Cups.

SeanCWombBroom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 05:37 PM
  #41
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Ah, he wasn't good enough... can come up with whatever reason you want. He wasn't good enough. He wasn't the player he is now the latter half of that year, and he wasn't the player he is now for the majority of last year.

He's improved.



You seriously think Carter is hurting Giroux's production more than Nodl, JVR, Zherdev, and Carcillo have hurt Richards'? Seriously?

Carter has been this teams best ES forward for a few years now.

And, no, Giroux is not every bit as important to this team as Richards... Richards remains our best all-around forward by a long shot. When it comes time to take on tough defensive responsibilities, that's still Richards' job... all while putting up similar point totals to Giroux.
To be fair, I'm not sure taking on defensive assignments is necessarily a huge detriment to putting up good points.

Often times, the other team's best offensive unity is not necessarily that good defensively, which can lead to opportunities for someone as pragmatic as Richards.

I'm not saying that it makes his job easier or that the argument is invalid - obviously, a player tasked with defense first and offense second may likely not score as many points, but I do think making it sound like some albatross hampering his offensive abilities is a bit extreme. Depending on the player, that may just suit his game - which I think is actually Richards' case. I think he's better at playing offense off of defense than just playing offense.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 06:46 PM
  #42
flyersfan187
Registered User
 
flyersfan187's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Morrisdale, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,838
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to flyersfan187 Send a message via Skype™ to flyersfan187
Giroux is a great player but franchise players prove themselves season after season. Lets give him a few years before we talk about that with him. Players do have up and down season, but the great ones are consistent. Or maybe its the whiskey talking! empty stomach=cheaper whiskey We do have a great team

flyersfan187 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  #43
Hockeypete49
How you like me now!
 
Hockeypete49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 4,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Mike Richards is the best forward on this team... and it isn't close.
I like Mike but to say it is not even close is way off base and totally wrong.

Hockeypete49 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 08:01 PM
  #44
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeypete49 View Post
I like Mike but to say it is not even close is way off base and totally wrong.
None of our forwards is really superior to him offensively, and he's demonstrably superior to most of them defensively (and Giroux isn't close defensively).

You do the math.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 08:11 PM
  #45
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
None of our forwards is really superior to him offensively, and he's demonstrably superior to most of them defensively (and Giroux isn't close defensively).

You do the math.
Do you think Giroux is bad defensively? I'm just curious 'cause reading this, it seems like you think he is, which is definitely not the case.

He's not on Richards' level, but he's still pretty decent outside of the occasional risky turnover - which, 9 times out of 10, he immediately recovers. He's very good on the back check, and has the necessary speed and instinct to disrupt many offensive plays. He's not the guy I center a shutdown line with late in a game on a defensive zone draw, but he's definitely not bad in his end.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 08:23 PM
  #46
Terence Peterman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
Do you think Giroux is bad defensively? I'm just curious 'cause reading this, it seems like you think he is, which is definitely not the case.

He's not on Richards' level, but he's still pretty decent outside of the occasional risky turnover - which, 9 times out of 10, he immediately recovers. He's very good on the back check, and has the necessary speed and instinct to disrupt many offensive plays. He's not the guy I center a shutdown line with late in a game on a defensive zone draw, but he's definitely not bad in his end.
The point isn't that Giroux is adequate, but that Richards is easily superior.

Terence Peterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2011, 11:59 PM
  #47
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
Do you think Giroux is bad defensively? I'm just curious 'cause reading this, it seems like you think he is, which is definitely not the case.

He's not on Richards' level, but he's still pretty decent outside of the occasional risky turnover - which, 9 times out of 10, he immediately recovers. He's very good on the back check, and has the necessary speed and instinct to disrupt many offensive plays. He's not the guy I center a shutdown line with late in a game on a defensive zone draw, but he's definitely not bad in his end.
He isn't very good defensively, but he competes. Which is a hell of a lot more than you can say about Briere. He's also playing the most demanding position defensively for a forward, and learning on the job. He gives away size and reach to a lot of guys which is a problem (even for Richards when he's facing bigger forwards), and he also has a propensity to try to stickhandle the puck out of trouble which leads to further trouble.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 02:46 AM
  #48
Hockeypete49
How you like me now!
 
Hockeypete49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 4,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
None of our forwards is really superior to him offensively, and he's demonstrably superior to most of them defensively (and Giroux isn't close defensively).

You do the math.
No you can take math out of it. To say G is not even close is just plain wrong. That is what you said and I disagree.

Hockeypete49 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 03:04 AM
  #49
mypunkrock
Registered User
 
mypunkrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 2,435
vCash: 500
This may sound corny, but does anyone else think Roo is a budding superstar, but lacks the "it" factor to be a franchise player. I immediately look to players like Dawkins, Rollins, Utley, even Iverson (though there is a whole host of other issues there).

Even something as simple as seeing how the team has played without Richie, the entire team dynamic changes drastically. Roo is good, but he is, to me, a 1b kind of guy, where he's obviously valuable, but will never be "that guy."

mypunkrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-24-2011, 05:13 AM
  #50
SeanCWombBroom
DownieFaceSoftener
 
SeanCWombBroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypunkrock View Post
This may sound corny, but does anyone else think Roo is a budding superstar, but lacks the "it" factor to be a franchise player. I immediately look to players like Dawkins, Rollins, Utley, even Iverson (though there is a whole host of other issues there).

Even something as simple as seeing how the team has played without Richie, the entire team dynamic changes drastically. Roo is good, but he is, to me, a 1b kind of guy, where he's obviously valuable, but will never be "that guy."
Not corny at all. This is how I was explaining it just the other day. He needs 'one more step' or 'the It' factor before he can be a superstar.

SeanCWombBroom 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 08:37 AM.

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.