Personally, I think it's silly to be overly optimistic OR pessimistic about this team. This team is the DEFINITION of an unknown right now. I find the people that think "we are now a better team" to be silly because that claim is based in very little. Again, the team is a huge unknown. I also think the people that claim we have no chance at a cup are being a little too pessimistic about it.
The fact of the matter is nobody has any idea what this team will do. It is far less proven than the team we just had, but it is also oozing with talented players (young players). We also have a legitimate goalie, which is new territory for us. I think it is as simple as, if the potential performs, we should be very good. If the potential struggles, we are going to have a hard time.
First off, can you please send me a pm with the next euro millions lottery, your opinion spouted as fact has completely changed my thoughts. The money could come in handy. Then could you tell me if you thought last years phoenix team was a play-off team. I mean really deep down. How about if you thought boston was going to win the cup, Or if chicago was going to put up such a fight.
Who is bitter now?
1) Go find the Boston/TB thread and you'll find that I was very high on both teams, and wanted no part of 'em. (Search feature appears to be shot at the moment.)
2) Yes, I like the PHX team. They have some very good young players... just need to get out of the desert. Hell, you can go find a thread where I shot down Cartsiephan for acting like there was no talent there.
3) Wait, did you expect Chicago to just roll over? They were exactly as expected... a team with a lot of top-end talent, but lacking depth following the purge and it hurt 'em.
As someone else stated, it is in the job description of the POTUS to know the Constitution. In fact, he swears an oath to that very premise of the gig.
The Constitution is not the same to the POTUS as the CBA is to a GM.
The President is the chief executive of the US Government. The US Government is framed by the Constitution. Therefore, it is 100% required by the President to know and understand the Constitution to do his job effectively.
The POTUS's job is literally to uphold the Constitution.
However, my analogy was that the President doesnt have to be an expert in every aspect of something despite making decisions about these things daily. Holmgren can make a decision that makes the team better despite not understanding every nuance of the CBA. That thing is 400+ pages of confusing lawyer speak. I do not expect Holmgren to know and understand everything. It's just unreasonable.
Personally, I think it's silly to be overly optimistic OR pessimistic about this team. This team is the DEFINITION of an unknown right now. I find the people that think "we are now a better team" to be silly because that claim is based in very little. Again, the team is a huge unknown. I also think the people that claim we have no chance at a cup are being a little too pessimistic about it.
The fact of the matter is nobody has any idea what this team will do. It is far less proven than the team we just had, but it is also oozing with talented players (young players). We also have a legitimate goalie, which is new territory for us. I think it is as simple as, if the potential performs, we should be very good. If the potential struggles, we are going to have a hard time.
Even if the young players perform, they would have to literally blow away the normal career arc to make us a "very good" team. A "good" team, yes, but a team with notable flaws that are difference makers when you're playing against the best.
If the Pens are healthy, for example, I don't know how we match up with them up front. As I said in another thread, we're right there with a group of teams in the 5-8 region right now... barring vast improvements in the play of a couple of players (JVR offensively, and Giroux defensively -- which will likely require sacrificing some offense) we have some problems. I think Schenn is going to be a good player, but expecting him or Couturier to step in and nail down the 3rd line C spot and potentially being a guy we can "match up" with is asking way too much of a young player.
Right now I like Washington, Pittsburgh, Boston, TB (assuming they get Stamkos done), and Buffalo (remember, they were coming on strong last year and lost Roy for a long time) more than us on paper. If Brad Richards ends up creating any sort of team offense in NY, then the Rangers will be much improved (and, as we know, Lundqvist is more than capable of carrying a team for stretches on his own). Devils will be better with a healthy Parise, but still have a flawed defense. The Isles are a team that should be getting better as their team ages... though, they still have obvious flaws. Not getting devastated by injuries alone will make them tougher to play against.
We'll be able to score some goals next year, and we should get better goaltending (though, people seem to be quickly forgetting that we got pretty good goaltending throughout the majority of the regular season). If Pronger is out for any extended period of time that will be a big blow to this team, however. This group of forwards is going to apply a lot of pressure on our D to hold things down behind them.
A lot of what Jester is saying has truth to it. Next season could be nothing but a failure for the Flyers or it could be a start of a dynasty. Regardless, I like the odds and support the Flyers.
The Constitution is not the same to the POTUS as the CBA is to a GM.
The President is the chief executive of the US Government. The US Government is framed by the Constitution. Therefore, it is 100% required by the President to know and understand the Constitution to do his job effectively.
The POTUS's job is literally to uphold the Constitution.
However, my analogy was that the President doesnt have to be an expert in every aspect of something despite making decisions about these things daily. Holmgren can make a decision that makes the team better despite not understanding every nuance of the CBA. That thing is 400+ pages of confusing lawyer speak. I do not expect Holmgren to know and understand everything. It's just unreasonable.
The CBA is, quite literally, the constitution of the NHL.
And the CBA isn't really all that confusing if you actually go and read the thing. More importantly, you're right... it isn't Holmgren's job per se to understand every word of the CBA. It is, however, his job to make sure that his organization as an entity understands the CBA and follows it correctly. As a manager, which Holmgren is, you are ultimately responsible for the performance of your employees.
A lot of what Jester is saying has truth to it. Next season could be nothing but a failure for the Flyers or it could be a start of a dynasty. Regardless, I like the odds and support the Flyers.
We're all entitled to our own opinions
To be clear, I'm very high on our group of forwards... 2-3 years from now. Not so hot on our D... 2-3 years now.
Thus my fundamental problem with what has gone on here. It's really important that your team age at the same right to achieve peak levels at the right moment, just don't see that happening with this current group. Holmgren is going to have to get creative on the back end in the next couple of years.
A lot of what Jester is saying has truth to it. Next season could be nothing but a failure for the Flyers or it could be a start of a dynasty. Regardless, I like the odds and support the Flyers.
We're all entitled to our own opinions
Having your own opinion is fine. Thats what message boards are about. But when you start be-littling others for having a different opinion is where it steps the line. Then proclaming predictions as fact again over steps.
no one knows how this team will play. If they have anything resembling chemistry then they will be a dangerous team that no one will want to play against. Chemistry is something that previous flyers teams have lacked severely
Having your own opinion is fine. Thats what message boards are about. But when you start be-littling others for having a different opinion is where it steps the line. Then proclaming predictions as fact again over steps.
Dude, don't let the use of declarative sentence structure (which promotes clarity, btw) cause you such consternation. We're writing in *ing July, it's obviously predictive.
no one knows how this team will play. If they have anything resembling chemistry then they will be a dangerous team that no one will want to play against. Chemistry is something that previous flyers teams have lacked severely
This team had fantastic chemistry prior to the Pronger trade. Chemistry looked pretty good when they ran through the East to get to the Cup Finals, too.
The CBA is, quite literally, the constitution of the NHL.
And the CBA isn't really all that confusing if you actually go and read the thing. More importantly, you're right... it isn't Holmgren's job per se to understand every word of the CBA. It is, however, his job to make sure that his organization as an entity understands the CBA and follows it correctly. As a manager, which Holmgren is, you are ultimately responsible for the performance of your employees.
Just like the POTUS.
Again, you are misunderstanding the analogy.
The CBA is absolutely the Constitution of the NHL. So the analogy would be CBA is to NHL as the Constitution is to the USA.
But what you are trying to say is that the CBA is to Paul Holmgren as the Constitution is to the POTUS. And that is incorrect.
Regardless, I agree with your last two sentences. I just dont think this is a big mistake in the grand scheme of things as long as it doesnt get in the way of him doing his job. His job is to make the Flyers as competitive a product as he can. Everything else, imo, is secondary.
Also, the CBA may not be difficult to understand, but the sheer volume of it can not simply me committed to memory in the event that Max Talbot's agent presents a faulty contract structure.
The CBA is absolutely the Constitution of the NHL. So the analogy would be CBA is to NHL as the Constitution is to the USA.
But what you are trying to say is that the CBA is to Paul Holmgren as the Constitution is to the POTUS. And that is incorrect.
Regardless, I agree with your last two sentences. I just dont think this is a big mistake in the grand scheme of things as long as it doesnt get in the way of him doing his job. His job is to make the Flyers as competitive a product as he can. Everything else, imo, is secondary.
Also, the CBA may not be difficult to understand, but the sheer volume of it can not simply me committed to memory in the event that Max Talbot's agent presents a faulty contract structure.
It's part of a chronic, and systemic trend with this organization under Holmgren's watch. THAT is why it is a big deal. If this didn't happen in the context of other mistakes of a similar nature, that would be one thing... it's nothing like the Blackhawks failing to QO their RFAs on time. These mistakes have added up, and they have caused problems. Moreover, these aren't judgment mistakes (which can be debated) but empirical mistakes that simply shouldn't happen if you're on top of the details.
I think signing Lilja to a 35+ contract (2 years) is a judgment error, for example... unlike Pronger, we can assume this isn't due to just not understanding the actual rules. Though, you'd think after the Lappy contract (35+) and Pronger contract (35+) both becoming a bit scary, they'd be more wary of such deals.
It's part of a chronic, and systemic trend with this organization under Holmgren's watch. THAT is why it is a big deal. If this didn't happen in the context of other mistakes of a similar nature, that would be one thing... it's nothing like the Blackhawks failing to QO their RFAs on time. These mistakes have added up, and they have caused problems. Moreover, these aren't judgment mistakes (which can be debated) but empirical mistakes that simply shouldn't happen if you're on top of the details.
I think signing Lilja to a 35+ contract (2 years) is a judgment error, for example... unlike Pronger, we can assume this isn't due to just not understanding the actual rules. Though, you'd think after the Lappy contract (35+) and Pronger contract (35+) both becoming a bit scary, they'd be more wary of such deals.
Again, I agree. These things are not up for debate. Holmgren does have a laundry list of notable errors that have occurred under his watch.
Holmgren also has done many things right. This team has made two serious runs for the Cup, and Holmgren has shown a willingness to make a big move that literally no other GM in the league has shown. He has many positive traits that really can't be replaced by any other general manager. I like that about Holmgren.
I'm not justifying his mistakes either. There are just too many of them for me to do that. However, he has been successful in making the Flyers contenders year in and year out, and at the end of the day, THAT is his job. As long as his mistakes dont get in the way of that (and, yes, it is debatable), then I am ok with Holmgren.
Again, I agree. These things are not up for debate. Holmgren does have a laundry list of notable errors that have occurred under his watch.
Holmgren also has done many things right. This team has made two serious runs for the Cup, and Holmgren has shown a willingness to make a big move that literally no other GM in the league has shown. He has many positive traits that really can't be replaced by any other general manager. I like that about Holmgren.
I'm not justifying his mistakes either. There are just too many of them for me to do that. However, he has been successful in making the Flyers contenders year in and year out, and at the end of the day, THAT is his job. As long as his mistakes dont get in the way of that (and, yes, it is debatable), then I am ok with Holmgren.
See, I would debate that characterization. We weren't winning the Cup with Leighton/Boucher/Bob backstopping us last year. We weren't winning the Cup with Leighton/Boucher the year before. The year before that he a** ***** the salary cap into ATOs dressing for this team and playing minutes (that's on Stevens) in the final week of the season (not to mention that team was emotionally gutted by the "cap saving" move of Upshall -- which didn't actually save the cap). The year before that was, no doubt, a very nice run but we were not a legit contender, and the Pens proved that rather handily. Team on the rise with a nice playoff run, sure.
The last two years we had a skating corps that could contend, but we lacked the goaltending. Maybe things could have been different if Emery had not been hurt, but because of his cap management and reckless dealing of draft picks we were stuck with Leighton/Boucher. Last year... it was always apparent how the story was going to play out.
See, I would debate that characterization. We weren't winning the Cup with Leighton/Boucher/Bob backstopping us last year. We weren't winning the Cup with Leighton/Boucher the year before. The year before that he a** ***** the salary cap into ATOs dressing for this team and playing minutes (that's on Stevens) in the final week of the season (not to mention that team was emotionally gutted by the "cap saving" move of Upshall -- which didn't actually save the cap). The year before that was, no doubt, a very nice run but we were not a legit contender, and the Pens proved that rather handily. Team on the rise with a nice playoff run, sure.
The last two years we had a skating corps that could contend, but we lacked the goaltending. Maybe things could have been different if Emery had not been hurt, but because of his cap management and reckless dealing of draft picks we were stuck with Leighton/Boucher. Last year... it was always apparent how the story was going to play out.
We lost last season because the team just stopped playing. If players like Richards, Hartnell, Carter, Pronger, Timonen, Leino, Giroux, etc. aren't playing to their potential, we wont make a run. The team played brutal despite having a better roster than the season before.
I think that's just the thing, it's not black and white. It's not "being better" or "being worse". All there really is is "playing better" and "playing worse". In the 2010 playoffs, the team played its best. In the 2011 playoffs, the team played like complete ****. There are very few things that are certainties in the NHL. Obviously the Islanders wont make a Cup run next year, and that's not what I'm saying. It's just that when a team reaches a certain calibre of skill, it comes down to execution more than actual talent. I mean, you'd be crazy if you thought Boston had the better team than Vancouver, but they sure played better, right? We have a long way to fall before saying we cant contend.
And saying that it was always apparent how it would play out, again, I disagree. We were within 2 games in 2010 with Leighton as our starter. Anything cap happen once you've built a capable team.
The rest is subjective. Since 2007, we have been given every chance to win the Cup given our roster on paper and we havent. Maybe it's time to stop worrying so much about being "contenders" or being "favorites". Paper can only take you so far.
We lost last season because the team just stopped playing. If players like Richards, Hartnell, Carter, Pronger, Timonen, Leino, Giroux, etc. aren't playing to their potential, we wont make a run. The team played brutal despite having a better roster than the season before.
I think that's just the thing, it's not black and white. It's not "being better" or "being worse". All there really is is "playing better" and "playing worse". In the 2010 playoffs, the team played its best. In the 2011 playoffs, the team played like complete ****. There are very few things that are certainties in the NHL. Obviously the Islanders wont make a Cup run next year, and that's not what I'm saying. It's just that when a team reaches a certain calibre of skill, it comes down to execution more than actual talent. I mean, you'd be crazy if you thought Boston had the better team than Vancouver, but they sure played better, right? We have a long way to fall before saying we cant contend.
And saying that it was always apparent how it would play out, again, I disagree. We were within 2 games in 2010 with Leighton as our starter. Anything cap happen once you've built a capable team.
The rest is subjective. Since 2007, we have been given every chance to win the Cup given our roster on paper and we havent. Maybe it's time to stop worrying so much about being "contenders" or being "favorites". Paper can only take you so far.
You say all of this as if how it played out with Leighton wasn't completely predictable.
