The guy was a do everything player for his college team, he's mature, and has good hockey sense. he's a lou amarillo kinda player. Starting to get a mid 80's vibe from this team.
Some moves, especially those for veteran players, are more easily judged. We have history to use as a basis. Other moves, such as acquiring rookies, are less easily judged. There is no history to base it on.
What is so wrong with this?
There's nothing wrong with it when it is warranted. Shelley, I agree is warranted. Others, have been warranted. But if you look back at trades/signings/etc made in the last two years or so, nearly all of the "bad" moves are immediately scrutinized as terrible before the trade has even really had a chance to be evaluated. Meanwhile, a good move is made and its just yeah ok this was a marginally good move but Homer is still the worst GM in the league. And despite the fact that the majority of these "bad" moves have had little to no impact on this team, they are still lauded as terrible moves and proof that Homer is a bad GM, while his good moves, that have had a much bigger impact are more exceptions to the rule and anyone who defends Homer (me and like four other posters) is an apologist.
Like I said from the beginning, just looking for some consistency. Homer makes a bad move, I've criticized him. Homer makes questionable moves, I've defended him until they play out. Homer makes a good move, I praise him. The majority of this place, however, criticizes to the max if the move isn't 100% immediately apparent that it is a hands down good move (which doesn't often happen here, or anywhere) and will only offer a passing good word about how every once in a while Homer makes a good move and it doesn't make up for his bad ones.
I don't know, maybe I am wrong, but that is just the way it seems to me on here. Maybe I'm off on this? Anyone?
As I said before, I'd be very pleased if he became the next Bozak without the hype or the paycheck. A solid third liner as a college UFA? Thank you Holmgren.
As I said before, I'd be very pleased if he became the next Bozak without the hype or the paycheck. A solid third liner as a college UFA? Thank you Holmgren.
Well the hype has gone from near zero to high with this Bob McKenzie tweet. Tomorrow the reporters might jump on it and start asking Read about it and ....
When it comes to criticizing Homer, it's perfectly fine, but BSH takes it to a new level sometimes. I mean, do I like the Andreas Lilja signing, no, but would I write and article so pessimistic in nature that I judge Paul Holmgren to be a worse GM for it, and sounding like it already cost us a cup...
Poor goaltending cost us a cup, and you know what, Holmgren went out and handled it, regardless of the contract he ultimately gave Bryz. This organization saw what it wanted, and went out and got it. Yeah, Vokoun may have signed for a pittance, but at the end of the day, they wanted Bryz, not Vokoun. Let's get over it, something I doubt BSH has done, and look forward to this season with some optimism. The Flyers are still extremely talented, and will be a hell of a lot of fun to watch.
Significant (Top 9/Potential Top 9) Forwards Within The Organization By Age
Jaromir Jagr (39)
Daniel Briere (33)
Scott Hartnell (29) Matt Read (25)
Andreas Nodl (24)
Mike Testwuide (24)
Claude Giroux (23)
Wayne Simmonds (23)
Jakub Voracek (22)
James vanRiemsdyk (22)
Eric Wellwood (21)
Tye McGinn (21)
Brayden Schenn (20)
Brendan Ranford (19)
Marcel Noebels (19)
Sean Couturier (18)
Nick Cousins (18)
How's that for a little perspective? Matt Read is McKenzie's sleeper for ROY, and he's the fourth oldest (top 9) forward in our organization.
I don't see how a Flyer can win it. Our rookies will be getting 3rd line minutes, compared to other rookies who will be getting top line minutes. I just don't see it.
I don't see how a Flyer can win it. Our rookies will be getting 3rd line minutes, compared to other rookies who will be getting top line minutes. I just don't see it.
With the top 3 lines we have, I wouldn't doubt if it was more like 1A, 1B, and 1C lines for minutes and importance.
There's nothing wrong with it when it is warranted. Shelley, I agree is warranted. Others, have been warranted. But if you look back at trades/signings/etc made in the last two years or so, nearly all of the "bad" moves are immediately scrutinized as terrible before the trade has even really had a chance to be evaluated. Meanwhile, a good move is made and its just yeah ok this was a marginally good move but Homer is still the worst GM in the league. And despite the fact that the majority of these "bad" moves have had little to no impact on this team, they are still lauded as terrible moves and proof that Homer is a bad GM, while his good moves, that have had a much bigger impact are more exceptions to the rule and anyone who defends Homer (me and like four other posters) is an apologist.
Like I said from the beginning, just looking for some consistency. Homer makes a bad move, I've criticized him. Homer makes questionable moves, I've defended him until they play out. Homer makes a good move, I praise him. The majority of this place, however, criticizes to the max if the move isn't 100% immediately apparent that it is a hands down good move (which doesn't often happen here, or anywhere) and will only offer a passing good word about how every once in a while Homer makes a good move and it doesn't make up for his bad ones.
I don't know, maybe I am wrong, but that is just the way it seems to me on here. Maybe I'm off on this? Anyone?
Give it a break dude. There was no reason for you to start all of this again. We get it, you like Homer.
When people are saying Lilja is some colossal failure and proof Homer is a moron...before he's even played 1 damn game, I think we can let the pendulum swing both ways here and count it good for Homey before Read has even played one game. So they cancel out, fair and fair. Homer has a net gain of 0 reputation from these events. Now he must roll his D20 to see if he gets any racial bonuses, and lets just ask our dungeon master what the percentages are.
I don't see it. Their are many players younger than Read who are more talented who will probably take the Calder, including our own Couturier. Interesting none the less.
Wow, that's a strong testament to Read's game and his persistence to fulfill his dreams. Well good. We need better two way forwards that work hard. Upshall with more upside part 2?
Significant (Top 9/Potential Top 9) Forwards Within The Organization By Age
Jaromir Jagr (39)
Daniel Briere (33)
Scott Hartnell (29) Matt Read (25)
Andreas Nodl (24)
Mike Testwuide (24)
Claude Giroux (23)
Wayne Simmonds (23)
Jakub Voracek (22)
James vanRiemsdyk (22)
Eric Wellwood (21)
Tye McGinn (21)
Brayden Schenn (20)
Brendan Ranford (19)
Marcel Noebels (19)
Sean Couturier (18)
Nick Cousins (18)
How's that for a little perspective? Matt Read is McKenzie's sleeper for ROY, and he's the fourth oldest (top 9) forward in our organization.
He's like the Danny Watkins of the Eagles, except the whole not-drafted thing.
Wow, that's a strong testament to Read's game and his persistence to fulfill his dreams. Well good. We need better two way forwards that work hard. Upshall with more upside part 2?
Upshall with more offensive upside I think, but with a little less fiestyness
Upshall with more offensive upside I think, but with a little less fiestyness
Actually, I think Upshall's offensive output sounds just about right for Read.
I also disagree with McKenzie. I don't think Read will win Calder. This is one time I'd love to be wrong. Theoretically we could have 3 names in that hat, and in the end, I give Schenn with the best chance at winning still.
Actually, I think Upshall's offensive output sounds just about right for Read.
I also disagree with McKenzie. I don't think Read will win Calder. This is one time I'd love to be wrong. Theoretically we could have 3 names in that hat, and in the end, I give Schenn with the best chance at winning still.
upshall has never his 20 goals or 40 points, I think Read has a chance to hit one or both of those possibly even this year.
