HFBoards

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

Puck Never Seems To Stop In Philly

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-04-2011, 03:57 PM
  #76
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Knoll View Post
Goaltending is kind of like the point guard position in basketball, absolutely critical and the team that wins generally gets great play at the position but the correlation between star power/salary and success just isn't there.

Look at recent cup winners, Chicago wins with a virtual unknown in his first season. Pittsburgh wins with a blue chip guy in Fleury and I guess we could put Ward/Carolina in that same sentence but those guys were not top 5 goalies or anything. Detroit wins with a cardboard cutout of Terry Sawchuk between the pipes and nearly repeats with it. Anaheim had a good playoff performer but I'd say Giggy was more Roloson than Roy, he also came within an inch of doing it another time with a pretty ragtag team in front of him.

You need a goalie who is reliable shot in and shot out and has some game-stealing potential, not a marquee name. If you look at the ten highest paid goalies in 2009-2010, they had exactly zero cups between them.

As far as Chris, well I don't see any inconsistency in his position although I don't agree with it entirely. I probably would take a 40-goal scorer over just about any of the really big-ticket goalies in the league but not in every single situation.

Besides that, we're not talking about picking between Pronger and Lundqvist here, we are talking about re-signing Leighton versus pursuing a guy like Roloson, which is a much lighter decision that is also easy to make.
No one is saying his position is inconsistent. It's been consistent for some time. And, as noted, his position isn't just concerning 40-goal scorers... is based on a completely poorly thought evaluation of the impact of a position on the course of play.

Take Pronger, for example. Great player. Under normal circumstances, he helps your team for 25 minutes a night. The other 35 minutes his impact is minimal.

There is no doubt that the marginal difference as you go up the ladder of goalies isn't all that much necessarily, but you at least want to be on a certain rung of that ladder... and if the goalie isn't performing at the necessary level, it doesn't matter what the rest of your team is doing.

If your goalie is playing great, your team can play like dog **** in front of him and they can be competitive.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 04:03 PM
  #77
PhillyPhinn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Turku, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotScore View Post
QB is not greater than Goaltender.

Goaltender is far greater.

The NFL QB needs a lot of help to be successful.

The Hockey Goalie potentially needs none.

The NFL QB can be shut down by the opposition's defense.

The Hockey Goalie can shut down the opposition by himself.

The NFL QB must rely on others to make plays.

The Hockey Goalie can make game-saving plays himself and needs no one else's help.

The NFL QB can win a game.

The Hockey Goalie can win a series.
Yes, "getting great goalie play" is more important than "getting good QB play", but "having a great QB" is much more important than "having a great goalie". There are only a handful of QB's that can get you "great QB play", while there are nearly endless amounts of goalies who can get you "great goalie play". Also, "great goalies" play really badly much more often than "great QBs" do.

Consider this scenario:

You have the 15th best team in the NHL(skaters only), and you can choose between Ryan Miller, Ilya Bryzgalov or Antero Niittymäki as your goalie.

You have the 15th best team in the NFL(without the QB), and you can choose between Peyton Manning, David Garrard and Derek Anderson as your QB.

I can guarantee you, that with Manning this team is a SB contender, with Garrard it's a playoff contender, and with Anderson it will be picking in the top 10 in next years draft. Can you seriously claim that the difference is as big between choosing Miller, Bryz or Niittymäki?


If this wasn't clear enough:

If the 49ers had Manning, they would be a 11-16 win team, if the Blue Jackets had Miller, they would be a 6th-8th seed in the West.

PhillyPhinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 04:19 PM
  #78
Richyrich
Registered User
 
Richyrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,164
vCash: 500
I agree with Chris on the goalie issue. I wrote 2 posts in my now defunct blog about it. This was from a few years ago so the numbers don't correspond to this year.

The major knock in my analysis is that I'd compared the in game impact of one individual to a group of twenty. Please understand that that was, in no way, the case. In fact, I agree: the goalie is the single most important player on a team. That is not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that there is so much parity between goalies, that all starters are so good at the NHL level, that their relative impact from one to another is somewhat negligible.

Moreover, this allows me to compare the impact of one forward to one goalie and their comparative impact on the game.

The league leader in GAA is Annti Niemi (his gaa is skewed by a great defense, mind you) and sits at 1.98. The average GAA is 2.64. This accounts for a difference of.66 goals per game. Projected over a 82 game season this translates to 54 goals.

The league leader in goals is Alex Ovechkin with 42 goals, the average is 7 (his point totals provide an even larger difference compared to the average-89 to 17). This is a 35 goal difference after 53 games. Coincidentally, this translates to a goal differential (when compared to the average) of .66.

So right there, we are comparing the impact of two singular players, fully neglecting the impact AO has on his linemates (and his 40+ assists). More importantly, a star's presence provides a ripple effect for all of his teammates. The quality of opposition falls for all other lines. This is evidenced by Mike Knubles jump in point scoring despite his age

By the way, Aaron Asham recently scored his 7th goal of the year.... Who falls on the average for GAA and SV% respectively? Marc Andre Fleury and Marty Turco... Just some food for thought about comparative impact

Richyrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 04:27 PM
  #79
RoyMunson
Registered User
 
RoyMunson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Raleigh
Country: United States
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
Show me one goalie that can win a game with his team not scoring a goal?

Now explain how a goalie potentially doesn't need ANY help...

Sorry but if a goalie has 5 skaters at the nacho stand instead of playing defense he is ****ed.
!Losing = Winning...

RoyMunson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 04:30 PM
  #80
drownedsailors
Registered User
 
drownedsailors's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Earth
Country: United States
Posts: 1,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotScore View Post
QB is not greater than Goaltender.

Goaltender is far greater.

The NFL QB needs a lot of help to be successful.

The Hockey Goalie potentially needs none.

The NFL QB can be shut down by the opposition's defense.

The Hockey Goalie can shut down the opposition by himself.

The NFL QB must rely on others to make plays.

The Hockey Goalie can make game-saving plays himself and needs no one else's help.

The NFL QB can win a game.

The Hockey Goalie can win a series.
What the hell are you talking about? Thomas was good, but you're literally saying that he would still win that game if his D didn't show up. You're wrong, look Thomas played great, but his D cleared the rebounds and took away the second chance opportunities; Hockey is a team game for a reason, it will never take one person to win.

Great Goaltenders can win series by themselves? really? why don't you tell that to Miller! He was amazing right? To bad the team in front of him didn't have the Depth to keep up with our forwards, and his D was a bunch kids with little experience.

drownedsailors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 04:34 PM
  #81
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyPhinn View Post
No, but if you look at international tournaments, it's not uncommon for "200th best goalies in the world" to get insanely hot for several games and shut out teams consisting of top level NHL'ers.

I can guarantee you that if we put any Finnish Elite League starting or backup goalie in the NHL for 80 games, every one of them would have at least a few games where they were the main reason the team won that night. I can also guarantee you that if we put a backup QB from the CFL in the NFL, they may one or two wins depending on the team they are on, but not one of them would ever play even close to the level of an actual NFL QB, nevermind an elite QB, and not one of them would ever be "the reason" the team won.


The difference between the best goalie in the world and the 200th best goalie in the world, is about the same as between the best QB in the world and the 20th best QB in the world.

That's why I think "getting great goalie play" is important to winning in hockey, but "having an elite goaltender" is not. That's also why I think goalies are like running backs, where having Adrian Peterson or Ladainian Tomlinson in their prime doesn't correlate with winning championships, just like having Luongos, Millers and Lundqvists doesnt in hockey.
Aside from the fact that most of your argument is subjective opinion (and I never disagreed that the QB has a higher impact anyway), you shot yourself in the foot with the statement that "getting great goalie play is important to winning in hockey."

To win a championship, a certain baseline level of goaltending is absolutely required. At some point, you need a guy in net who can steal a game now and then, and at the very least a guy who won't lose one for you.

You can split hairs all day about what 'elite level goaltending' means in today's league, but the fact remains that you need a guy who will be above average, or at least play at an above average level in the playoffs. No matter what the rest of your team is doing, if the goalie gives up terrible goals with some regularity and can't make the big save now and then, you won't win championships.

No other one player on the ice has that sort of impact for the entire game. If you have a terrible goalie, it doesn't matter if the best d-man in the league plays 30 minutes that night, or if the best forward in the league plays 24. For all of the time they're sitting on the bench, a goalie who isn't giving you "great goalie play" can literally lose the game for your entire team. Any one skater, if they have a bad game, can be made up for by the rest of the team. If a goalie gives up a terrible goal or three, you're at a serious disadvantage on the scoreboard right away, no matter what the rest of the team does...

It's just a singularly important position. It doesn't mean you NEED an elite goalie, but you need one who will play well when the games count, and you're much more likely to get that from an above average goalie.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 04:53 PM
  #82
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richyrich View Post
I agree with Chris on the goalie issue. I wrote 2 posts in my now defunct blog about it. This was from a few years ago so the numbers don't correspond to this year.

The major knock in my analysis is that I'd compared the in game impact of one individual to a group of twenty. Please understand that that was, in no way, the case. In fact, I agree: the goalie is the single most important player on a team. That is not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that there is so much parity between goalies, that all starters are so good at the NHL level, that their relative impact from one to another is somewhat negligible.

Moreover, this allows me to compare the impact of one forward to one goalie and their comparative impact on the game.

The league leader in GAA is Annti Niemi (his gaa is skewed by a great defense, mind you) and sits at 1.98. The average GAA is 2.64. This accounts for a difference of.66 goals per game. Projected over a 82 game season this translates to 54 goals.

The league leader in goals is Alex Ovechkin with 42 goals, the average is 7 (his point totals provide an even larger difference compared to the average-89 to 17). This is a 35 goal difference after 53 games. Coincidentally, this translates to a goal differential (when compared to the average) of .66.

So right there, we are comparing the impact of two singular players, fully neglecting the impact AO has on his linemates (and his 40+ assists). More importantly, a star's presence provides a ripple effect for all of his teammates. The quality of opposition falls for all other lines. This is evidenced by Mike Knubles jump in point scoring despite his age

By the way, Aaron Asham recently scored his 7th goal of the year.... Who falls on the average for GAA and SV% respectively? Marc Andre Fleury and Marty Turco... Just some food for thought about comparative impact
This argument holds a lot of weight as an economic argument about how you spend money on the position, particularly past the identifiable elite. The problem is translating an economic argument about the monetary value of the position onto the importance of the on-ice production from the position.

If you want to have an economic conversation about how much one should spend on goalie, that's an area where it's quite interesting. But Shafer's argument is that goalies are the product of their team more than themselves, and therefore THAT is why you shouldn't invest in 'em.

That argument is crap.

[BTW, GAA is not a stat I would ever use to evaluate the performance of a goalie. Just saying.]

Quote:
This is evidenced by Mike Knubles jump in point scoring despite his age.
I suggest you look at Knubles TOI's stats before you start making this argument too hard. The reason his scoring jumped was because he was finally given the ice time and linemates to, ya know, score goals.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 05:21 PM
  #83
thewall
Registered User
 
thewall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 868
vCash: 500
Here is my take on the goalie situation in Philly.... As a Habs fan... I think that you guys would be the favorite for the cup with a guy like Rask or Price as your goalie.

Flyers fans wouldnt trade Carter for Price or Rask.. but in my opinion Carter is replacable because of your debpt at the foward position. Would the Habs do Carter for Price.. I doubt it because Price (the Goalie) is the most important position in MTL. Sure to had offence with a player like Carter would be amazing, but we don't have the dept to depend on an average goalie like the Flyers do..


Good luck in your series against the Bruins.. I Hate this team so much.. please win win win.. and Claude Giroux is from my home town so another reason to cheer for you guys!

thewall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 05:23 PM
  #84
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,231
vCash: 5775
Goaltending a product of the defense, so someone explain Tim Thomas and what the hell happened the other night - and many others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotScore View Post
QB is not more important.

Plenty of teams have won Super Bowls with average QBs. And some with below average QBs.
I am a New Orleans Saints fan. My whole life as a sports fan changed when Drew Brees stepped foot in Louisiana.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 06:11 PM
  #85
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
We don't need a superstar goaltender.

We need one that doesn't **** the bed. Dwayne rolloson would of been amazing. Why the flyers didn't make a move for him, i will never understand.

Trouble is, there isn't enough "decent" goaltenders in the league anymore.

Spongolium* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 06:17 PM
  #86
ShotScore*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Philadelphia,Pa.
Country: Italy
Posts: 926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
This.

Is.

Not.

A.

Convincing.

Argument.

Sorry.

NFL.

Is.

A.

QB.

Driven.

League.

For.

A.

Reason.
Why is this not a convincing argument?

Because you say so?

The NFL being a QB driven league somehow proves to you that it's a more important position than a goalie?

Allow me to explain a few things to you Jester.

1) The NFL is a QB driven league now because that is how the modern game has evolved.

This was not always the case.

American football started out as a purely run-driven game. Hence, the emphasis was on the running backs.

The emergence of the QB came about because of the emergence of more complex offensive schemes being invented.

Which leads to an interesting insight.

If the game of football were at any point to revert back to the running game, the importance of the QB position would again be diminished.

A point here...

This can NEVER happen with the Hockey Goaltender.

The Hockey Goaltender's position in the game can never be diminished no matter how the game of hockey evolves.

I'll also prove to you that the Hockey Goalie is superior to the NFL QB another way.

It is absolutely demonstrable that you don't need an above average QB to win a Super Bowl. In some cases, you can get by and actually win the Super Bowl with a below average QB.

Now go back into the whole history of hockey Jester.....

See who has been through the playoffs and won a Stanley Cup with a below average goalie.

You have a gigantic advantage here in the fact that the history of hockey and the Stanley Cup goes much farther back than the history of the Super Bowl.

If you can't find a single team that has ever won a Stanley Cup with below average goaltending, will I finally have proved my point to you?

ShotScore* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 06:19 PM
  #87
ShotScore*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Philadelphia,Pa.
Country: Italy
Posts: 926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
Show me one goalie that can win a game with his team not scoring a goal?

Now explain how a goalie potentially doesn't need ANY help...

Sorry but if a goalie has 5 skaters at the nacho stand instead of playing defense he is ****ed.
This is one of the most idiotic posts I've ever seen on these boards and that's saying something.

Since it's not possible to win any game on earth 0-0 your point is invalid and just plain foolish.

ShotScore* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 06:30 PM
  #88
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Who cares how football was played 60 years ago when talking about how important the QB position is now? Guys used to play both ways, are one-way players worthless?

QB absolutely increased in worth as the game changed... Making it the most valuable position in sports.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 11:38 PM
  #89
PhillyPhinn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Turku, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotScore View Post
If you can't find a single team that has ever won a Stanley Cup with below average goaltending, will I finally have proved my point to you?
You seem to be missing the point. The point was that having "a great QB" is much more important than "having a great goalie". No one here is arguing that getting good goaltending isn't crucial, so stop arguing beside the point.


I repeat:

You have the 15th best team in the NHL(skaters only), and you can choose between Ryan Miller, Ilya Bryzgalov and Antero Niittymäki as your goalie.

You have the 15th best team in the NFL(without the QB), and you can choose between Peyton Manning, David Garrard and Derek Anderson as your QB.

I can guarantee you, that with Manning this team is a SB contender, with Garrard it's a playoff contender, and with Anderson it will be picking in the top 10 in next years draft. Can you seriously claim that the difference is as big between choosing Miller, Bryz or Niittymäki?


Also, name me 5 examples of a team, who by adding a certain goalie became almost over-night a championship contender instead of the losing franchise they were before.

Also, name me 5 examples of a team, who by losing a certain goalie became over-night a losing franchise instead of the championship contender they were before.

PhillyPhinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 12:39 AM
  #90
BillDineen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,634
vCash: 500
A few points:

1- Who would you want on Team Canada, a 12th 40 goal scorer or a top goalie? At some point, another scorer is marginal vs actually having a goalie you can count on.

2- No one seems to consider the effect a marginal, inconsistent goalie has on the play of the players in front of him. It makes a huge different in the confidence of a team if they have a goalie that can cover some of their mistakes vs one that might lose it if they play at their best.

3- An average goalie can win in the playoffs IF they get on a hot streak. No team has one the cup with a 3 goalie rotation as far as I know. Homer has given up assets to be in a win now mode, but still relies on the crap shoot of whether a goalie will get hot or not.

4- This debate is exhausting. Trade Carle if needed and sign Vokoun for 2 years. If that doesn't work, I will consider the Flyers eternally cursed.

BillDineen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 01:26 AM
  #91
decadentia
Registered User
 
decadentia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Brunswick
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,547
vCash: 500
Why don't we discuss hockey in the thread about hockey.

I think we've actually tried the cheap/average-****** goalie method, perhaps we should try for a good+ goalie. Goaltending clearly matters even if you surround them with a stacked D on paper.

decadentia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 02:41 AM
  #92
Claude28Giroux
praiseG
 
Claude28Giroux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lewiston, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,533
vCash: 500
I made this poll, reading this thread sparked me:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=911227

Claude28Giroux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:03 AM
  #93
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by decadentia View Post
Why don't we discuss hockey in the thread about hockey.

I think we've actually tried the cheap/average-****** goalie method, perhaps we should try for a good+ goalie. Goaltending clearly matters even if you surround them with a stacked D on paper.
The football conversation is directly related to establishing the worth of a goalie. There is no debate in football that you have to build your team around QB play, and if you don't have quality there it's an uphill climb.

In hockey... We see the goalies are made by the team stuff.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 12:12 PM
  #94
ShotScore*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Philadelphia,Pa.
Country: Italy
Posts: 926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyPhinn View Post
You seem to be missing the point. The point was that having "a great QB" is much more important than "having a great goalie". No one here is arguing that getting good goaltending isn't crucial, so stop arguing beside the point.


I repeat:

You have the 15th best team in the NHL(skaters only), and you can choose between Ryan Miller, Ilya Bryzgalov and Antero Niittymäki as your goalie.

You have the 15th best team in the NFL(without the QB), and you can choose between Peyton Manning, David Garrard and Derek Anderson as your QB.

I can guarantee you, that with Manning this team is a SB contender, with Garrard it's a playoff contender, and with Anderson it will be picking in the top 10 in next years draft. Can you seriously claim that the difference is as big between choosing Miller, Bryz or Niittymäki?


Also, name me 5 examples of a team, who by adding a certain goalie became almost over-night a championship contender instead of the losing franchise they were before.

Also, name me 5 examples of a team, who by losing a certain goalie became over-night a losing franchise instead of the championship contender they were before.


Your post is absurd.

The QB position is a position which by it's nature, needs all kinds of help in order to succeed.

No QB that ever lived could take the 15th best team in the league and win the Super Bowl just by adding him to the team.

You bring up Peyton manning, then let's talk about Peyton Manning.

In 1998, Manning's rookie year, the Indianapolis Colts went 3-13, only two seasons after they went 9-7 and were a playoff contender.

The following year, Manning's 2nd, they went 13-3 winning their division and then getting beat by the Tennessee Titans in the first playoff game Manning ever played.

The following year, Manning's 3rd, they regressed, going 10-6 and finishing 2nd in their division.

They made the playoffs but were defeated by the miami dolphins in Manning's 2nd playoff game ever. He is now, at this point, 0-2 in playoff games.

The following year, Manning's 4th, The Colts go 6-10 finishing 4th in their division and didn't make the playoffs.

In Manning's 5th season, 2002, the NFL restructures and puts the Colts in the AFC South after having been in the AFC East. The Colts finish the season 10-6 and are destroyed in the first game of the playoffs by the New York Jets 41-0.

Manning is now 0-3 for his career in the playoffs at this point.

After 5 seasons with Manning and continually building each year through the draft and free agency, in 2003, the Colts go 12-4 and win their division. They go all the way to the conference final game where they get beat by Tom Brady and the New England Patriots 24-14.

I can go on but I'm going to stop here.

In short, as you can see, winning the Super Bowl is a process. A long, hard process.

No one position is going to make a team a Super Bowl contender. Instead, it takes teams many years to fill their positions of need in order to get to that point.

ShotScore* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 12:19 PM
  #95
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotScore View Post
No QB that ever lived could take the 15th best team in the league and win the Super Bowl just by adding him to the team.
Kurt Warner was a game winning drive by Big Ben (a guy on a HoF trajectory) away from doing pretty much that.

The Colts would have been TERRIBLE last year if you removed Peyton Manning.

Your argument concerning the value of QBs is remarkably bad. The very rules of the sport have been augmented to emphasize QB play more (pass interference, etc.), and that is on top of the fact that offensive schemes have come to rely heavily on QB play at the expense of other positions. RBs are far less important today than they were 20 years ago (if you don't believe me, then I'm assuming you don't play fantasy football).

The only comparable value to an organization is an elite defense, but that is truly a teamwork enterprise... whereas QBs have a great deal of individual control over the fate of their offense. An elite QB can make a mediocre WR into a good WR, but an elite WR isn't going to fix your problem at QB if the QB sucks.

When Brees came to the Saints he made a 3-13 team a 10-6 team in ONE year. 31st in the NFL in pts, to 5th in the NFL. 20th in the NFL in yards, to 1st.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 12:25 PM
  #96
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
To shift discussion back to hockey, has anyone noticed how quiet Shafer always is immediately after goaltending blows games for us? I'd love to hear that explanation about how little the goalies impact the game right now.

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 02:36 PM
  #97
ShotScore*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Philadelphia,Pa.
Country: Italy
Posts: 926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Kurt Warner was a game winning drive by Big Ben (a guy on a HoF trajectory) away from doing pretty much that.

The Colts would have been TERRIBLE last year if you removed Peyton Manning.

Your argument concerning the value of QBs is remarkably bad. The very rules of the sport have been augmented to emphasize QB play more (pass interference, etc.), and that is on top of the fact that offensive schemes have come to rely heavily on QB play at the expense of other positions. RBs are far less important today than they were 20 years ago (if you don't believe me, then I'm assuming you don't play fantasy football).

The only comparable value to an organization is an elite defense, but that is truly a teamwork enterprise... whereas QBs have a great deal of individual control over the fate of their offense. An elite QB can make a mediocre WR into a good WR, but an elite WR isn't going to fix your problem at QB if the QB sucks.

When Brees came to the Saints he made a 3-13 team a 10-6 team in ONE year. 31st in the NFL in pts, to 5th in the NFL. 20th in the NFL in yards, to 1st.


Another bad argument.

Drew Brees was originally drafted by the San Diego Chargers. He went 8-8 in his first year there.

In in his second year with San Diego, the Chargers finished 4-12 and Brees was replaced at QB with Doug Flutie.

San Diego had so much confidence in Brees that they then traded for Philip Rivers to replace him, which he eventually did, after a money dispute.

As for the Saints being 3-13 and then going to 10-6 you neglected to mention a couple of things.

First, the year before Brees went to New Orleans the city, and the team, was dealing with affects of Hurricane Katrina which devastated them.

If you look at the year before that, in 2004, they were a team that finished 8-8. So they weren't a bad team to begin with.

In the year after they acquired Brees, his 2nd with them, they finished 7-9 and in 3rd place in their division and out of the playoffs.

The year after that, they went 8-8 and finished dead last in their division and again missing the playoffs.

ShotScore* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 02:47 PM
  #98
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,231
vCash: 5775
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotScore View Post
The year after that, they went 8-8 and finished dead last in their division and again missing the playoffs.
What did they do the next year?

The years before Katrina when they had Aaron Brooks (who had me in denial), and they were always looking to contend but finished 8-8.

Brees comes in and is not only the face of the team, but the face of the city. Even this year, he's gotten a good number of his locked out teammates to stick around and work out with each other. Not sure how many other teams are doing that, but he was a single person who turned around the fortunes of an entire region let alone the team being that he is the most important player on the team. And he helps makes his teammates better than they really are, much like how a goaltender can make his teammates better than they are.


Last edited by GKJ: 05-05-2011 at 02:53 PM.
GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 02:54 PM
  #99
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotScore View Post
Another bad argument.

Drew Brees was originally drafted by the San Diego Chargers. He went 8-8 in his first year there.

In in his second year with San Diego, the Chargers finished 4-12 and Brees was replaced at QB with Doug Flutie.

San Diego had so much confidence in Brees that they then traded for Philip Rivers to replace him, which he eventually did, after a money dispute.

As for the Saints being 3-13 and then going to 10-6 you neglected to mention a couple of things.

First, the year before Brees went to New Orleans the city, and the team, was dealing with affects of Hurricane Katrina which devastated them.

If you look at the year before that, in 2004, they were a team that finished 8-8. So they weren't a bad team to begin with.

In the year after they acquired Brees, his 2nd with them, they finished 7-9 and in 3rd place in their division and out of the playoffs.

The year after that, they went 8-8 and finished dead last in their division and again missing the playoffs.
So, your argument is that Brees didn't immensely improve the NO Saints? The reason their record wasn't great was because the Saints defense was putrid. It improved to merely bottom of the mediocre group (20th in the NFL) and they won a SB.

Look dude, your evaluation of the QB position is one of the worst sports arguments I've ever read.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 02:55 PM
  #100
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
What did they do the next year?

The years before Katrina when they had Aaron Brooks (who had me in denial), and they were always looking to contend but finished 8-8.

Brees comes in and is not only the face of the team, but the face of the city. Even this year, he's gotten a good number of his locked out teammates to stick around and work out with each other. Not sure how many other teams are doing that, but he was a single person who turned around the fortunes of an entire region let alone the team being that he is the most important player on the team. And he helps makes his teammates better than they really are, much like how a goaltender can make his teammates better than they are.
Having just gotten back from NO... it's really clear people need to slow down with applying sports teams' fate to the larger picture.

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 07:19 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.