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

Do we give Holmgren enough credit?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-12-2011, 10:21 AM
  #176
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
1/30 is true in a theoretical world, it isn't true in the real world. The Flyers have been competing with a much smaller sample than that.
True enough, and a fair point. My original point about the Stanley Cup being the only metric for success still stands. It can't be as simple as pass/fail, cup/no-cup. And I'm not saying this because I think Paul Holmgren is a great GM either. To look at it so simplistically not only denies him his successes, but lumps his failure (i.e. simply not having a cup) in with the shortcomings of other, shrewder GM's. As an example, I don't think Paul Holmgren's job performance to date is on par with Steve Yzerman's, yet neither have a cup so their job performance last year was equal by that silly metric. We both know it's not that simple.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 10:24 AM
  #177
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
True enough, and a fair point. My original point about the Stanley Cup being the only metric for success still stands. It can't be as simple as pass/fail, cup/no-cup. And I'm not saying this because I think Paul Holmgren is a great GM either. To look at it so simplistically not only denies him his successes, but lumps his failure (i.e. simply not having a cup) in with the shortcomings of other, shrewder GM's. I guess what I'm saying in short is that it's not that simple.
I agree that the Cup is not the only metric for success... but not being one of the causes your team fails to achieve the Cup should be a metric for consideration of success... and Holmgren suffers considerably there. At the same time, winning the Cup does not necessarily mean you're a great GM. I think Tallon is a *ing idiot, but he built the Blackhawks that won the Cup.. he's also the reason they barely made the playoffs last year, and may not win another Cup in the foreseeable future despite being setup to be a dynasty a few years back.

It would be one thing if the Flyers had come up short and you couldn't pinpoint why on obvious problems that the GM failed to address... but with the Flyers, you can.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 10:32 AM
  #178
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I agree that the Cup is not the only metric for success... but not being one of the causes your team fails to achieve the Cup should be a metric for consideration of success... and Holmgren suffers considerably there. At the same time, winning the Cup does not necessarily mean you're a great GM. I think Tallon is a *ing idiot, but he built the Blackhawks that won the Cup.. he's also the reason they barely made the playoffs last year, and may not win another Cup in the foreseeable future despite being setup to be a dynasty a few years back.

It would be one thing if the Flyers had come up short and you couldn't pinpoint why on obvious problems that the GM failed to address... but with the Flyers, you can.
We agree wholeheartedly on everything you're saying. To have one glaring, correctable flaw be your downfall is infuriating and unacceptable. My point is simply that while Holmgren was the a**hole that got us Versteeg instead of a goalie last year, he was also the a**hole that had our team a serviceable goalie away from a likely cup win. I was right there with you last off-season *****ing to no end about Homer. I'm not a big fan, but I am even handed.

I would wager that most GM's would've paid what they had to in order to get the team real tending that Spring. Holmgren has also made some other moves that a lot of GM's might not have. The good with the bad, and only looking at cup wins is a ********, intellectually dishonest (or intellectually lacking) way of only having to address the bad Holmgren has done.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 11:16 AM
  #179
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,688
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I agree that the Cup is not the only metric for success... but not being one of the causes your team fails to achieve the Cup should be a metric for consideration of success... and Holmgren suffers considerably there. At the same time, winning the Cup does not necessarily mean you're a great GM. I think Tallon is a *ing idiot, but he built the Blackhawks that won the Cup.. he's also the reason they barely made the playoffs last year, and may not win another Cup in the foreseeable future despite being setup to be a dynasty a few years back.

It would be one thing if the Flyers had come up short and you couldn't pinpoint why on obvious problems that the GM failed to address... but with the Flyers, you can.
Come on, man. You're putting speculative results over actual ones like everyone else on here. If the Flyers had gotten goalie that year, there is no guarantee they would have won the Cup or that the team would have even looked the same way it did then or now. Could have helped to have a different goalie, obviously, but maybe that would have meant losing another player in order to get that goalie and we don't even make the playoffs that year. All we have are the results. Anything else is pure speculation.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 11:43 AM
  #180
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Come on, man. You're putting speculative results over actual ones like everyone else on here. If the Flyers had gotten goalie that year, there is no guarantee they would have won the Cup or that the team would have even looked the same way it did then or now. Could have helped to have a different goalie, obviously, but maybe that would have meant losing another player in order to get that goalie and we don't even make the playoffs that year. All we have are the results. Anything else is pure speculation.
the Flyers were one OT goal away from getting to game 7 of the Cup Final with a AHL goalie. It doesnt take rocket science to realize that if we had a NHL goalie in the nets there is a pretty good chance we could of won it all. NHL goalies dont get run from the game twice in the first 5 games of the Cup Final. Leighton is not a NHL goalie. that isnt speculation. that is fact.


Last edited by GoneFullHextall: 10-12-2011 at 11:50 AM.
GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 11:46 AM
  #181
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,332
vCash: 500
Fact: We scored enough goals to win

Fact: Our goaltender did not make enough saves to win.

Holmgren then ignored these facts and did nothing to address the problem. He did get amazingly lucky when Bob broke out.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 11:47 AM
  #182
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 111,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Come on, man. You're putting speculative results over actual ones like everyone else on here. If the Flyers had gotten goalie that year, there is no guarantee they would have won the Cup or that the team would have even looked the same way it did then or now. Could have helped to have a different goalie, obviously, but maybe that would have meant losing another player in order to get that goalie and we don't even make the playoffs that year. All we have are the results. Anything else is pure speculation.
You don't think Dwayne Roloson would have given the Flyers a better chance to beat Chicago than Michael Leighton?

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 11:51 AM
  #183
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,688
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
the Flyers were one OT goal away from getting to the Cup Final with a AHL goalie. It doesnt take rocket science to realize that if we had a NHL goalie in the nets there is a pretty good chance we could of won it all. NHL goalies dont get run from the game twice in the first 5 games of the Cup Final. Leighton is not a NHL goalie. that isnt speculation. that is fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Fact: We scored enough goals to win

Fact: Our goaltender did not make enough saves to win.
These are true facts, yes. But what you guys fail to realize is that it isn't as simple as just saying ok hey lets have Luongo play for us. You have to actually go out and get the player. That may mean a trade, that may mean a signing. But there is no telling who that other goalie would have been or how they would have gotten him. There is also no telling how that goalie would have played. You can sit here all you want say all he had to do was X, but in the end, that X would have changed something else on the team somewhere and there is no telling what effect that would have had on key goals, bad turnovers, chemistry, etc. Yes, if they had a different goalie and that same exact team, there is obviously a much better chance of winning. I don't think anyone would really argue that. But the problem is is that to get that goalie it likely would not have been the same team and there is also the chance that they would not have won. Not to mention it would also likely have changed what the team would have looked like now. Or it may not have and everything would be the same. But there is no way to tell and since the results have been good, how can you say that the results you are coming up with in your head based on 100% pure speculation are more important than the actual results?

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 11:53 AM
  #184
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 111,135
vCash: 500
I don't think anyone was asking for Luongo. I think they were asking for someone who wasn't hanging on to his NHL career by a thread.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 11:54 AM
  #185
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,688
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
You don't think Dwayne Roloson would have given the Flyers a better chance to beat Chicago than Michael Leighton?
I didn't say it wouldn't have been a better chance, but you are speculating to two things at once when you say that. First that the Flyers could have gotten him without changing the team. Second that he would have actually played better. While both of those things may be possible, they are all speculation. Are you gonna say Crosby should win the Hart Trophy this year because if he was healthy he would have been MVP? No, because that is ridiculous, there is no telling what he would have done. But you are saying that the Flyers could have and would have gotten Roloson and could have and would have won the Cup with him. It's all speculation which is worth exactly nothing, which is why results are what matters.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 11:58 AM
  #186
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,332
vCash: 500
It's really safe to say that Roloson would have played better than MFL. Roloson is simply a better goalie than Leighton.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 11:58 AM
  #187
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 111,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I didn't say it wouldn't have been a better chance, but you are speculating to two things at once when you say that. First that the Flyers could have gotten him without changing the team. Second that he would have actually played better. While both of those things may be possible, they are all speculation. Are you gonna say Crosby should win the Hart Trophy this year because if he was healthy he would have been MVP? No, because that is ridiculous, there is no telling what he would have done. But you are saying that the Flyers could have and would have gotten Roloson and could have and would have won the Cup with him. It's all speculation which is worth exactly nothing, which is why results are what matters.
Yes. They could have. The Islanders wanted a 2nd round pick. The Flyers could have given Ryan Parent and a 3rd round pick, unless you think Ryan Parent was an important part of the team. The Flyers drafted Michael Chaput and traded him for Tom Sestito. While hindsight is 20/20, you tell me which is the road you'd like to take.

That mind you with Ed Snider behind the scenes threatening everyone with "they better make the playoffs," so it was arguably the last/only shot with a number of the people they had, and they barely had one more chance in a year where it was pretty much guaranteed that they would bounce.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 12:10 PM
  #188
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,688
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
It's really safe to say that Roloson would have played better than MFL. Roloson is simply a better goalie than Leighton.
That's fine, I'm not arguing that he is a better goalie. But sometimes better goalies play worse than worse ones. Maybe Roloson makes some bad plays in an earlier series or a game down the stretch and they don't even come close to the Cup. That is where the speculation comes in. On paper, it sounds better, but it is 100% speculation to say something would have happened another way with all the variables, which is why the results are what matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
Yes. They could have. The Islanders wanted a 2nd round pick. The Flyers could have given Ryan Parent and a 3rd round pick, unless you think Ryan Parent was an important part of the team. The Flyers drafted Michael Chaput and traded him for Tom Sestito. While hindsight is 20/20, you tell me which is the road you'd like to take.

That mind you with Ed Snider behind the scenes threatening everyone with "they better make the playoffs," so it was arguably the last/only shot with a number of the people they had, and they barely had one more chance in a year where it was pretty much guaranteed that they would bounce.
Ok unless you are the one making the deals for Islanders, that's still speculation. Even assuming arguendo that they did get Roloson, there is still the speculation about how he would have played down the stretch and in the playoffs. It isn't a 1-1 switch.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 12:12 PM
  #189
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,332
vCash: 500
This team was playing out of its mind on defense. In fact, they were playing so well that apparently anybody could have been in net.

Roloson would have been fine.

edit: Ok DFF, if there's so much uncertainty around goalies, then was getting Bryzgalov a waste of time? Why bother improving in goal if you just don't know how it will go?

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 12:15 PM
  #190
sobrien
RAFFLCOPTER
 
sobrien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 6,696
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
This team was playing out of its mind on defense. In fact, they were playing so well that apparently anybody could have been in net.

Roloson would have been fine.

edit: Ok DFF, if there's so much uncertainty around goalies, then was getting Bryzgalov a waste of time? Why bother improving in goal if you just don't know how it will go?
The MFL factor. They saw an inferior goaltender behind them and decided it was on them to net let anything though.

sobrien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 12:16 PM
  #191
Giroux tha Damaja
Registered User
 
Giroux tha Damaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Giroux tha Damaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
These are true facts, yes. But what you guys fail to realize is that it isn't as simple as just saying ok hey lets have Luongo play for us. You have to actually go out and get the player. That may mean a trade, that may mean a signing. But there is no telling who that other goalie would have been or how they would have gotten him. There is also no telling how that goalie would have played. You can sit here all you want say all he had to do was X, but in the end, that X would have changed something else on the team somewhere and there is no telling what effect that would have had on key goals, bad turnovers, chemistry, etc. Yes, if they had a different goalie and that same exact team, there is obviously a much better chance of winning. I don't think anyone would really argue that. But the problem is is that to get that goalie it likely would not have been the same team and there is also the chance that they would not have won. Not to mention it would also likely have changed what the team would have looked like now. Or it may not have and everything would be the same. But there is no way to tell and since the results have been good, how can you say that the results you are coming up with in your head based on 100% pure speculation are more important than the actual results?
You trade futures for Dwayne god damn Roloson. We didn't want Luongo/Thomas/Lundqvist and we didn't need one of them. We wanted a goalie who could occasionally make a difficult save. Holmgren trades away second rounders so that good players can leave town early to cover up for his cap boo boo's, he could've traded for a goalie.

The one thing that we haven't really addressed is that the playoffs weren't a given at the deadline. Perhaps Holmgren didn't even think they could make the play-offs, let alone make some noise once they got there. Why spend a second rounder on a goalie that won't make a difference to a team that's gonna scrape in. I'm still not letting him off the hook for it though, he should've pulled the trigger.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 12:28 PM
  #192
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,688
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
This team was playing out of its mind on defense. In fact, they were playing so well that apparently anybody could have been in net.

Roloson would have been fine.

edit: Ok DFF, if there's so much uncertainty around goalies, then was getting Bryzgalov a waste of time? Why bother improving in goal if you just don't know how it will go?
You're missing the point. If you want to speculate going forward, do it all you want, that is all you can do because you don't have any future results. But looking back in hindsight it's not that simple. When looking at results, you can't say X would have done better than Y because there is too much speculation involved. Sure, on paper it would have been a better team with Roloson in net, not saying it wouldn't have been. But paper means jack boo, especially when talking about hindsight. If you stick Roloson in for Leighton, the second half of the season would not have gone the same way. It isn't the same thing as putting Roloson in Leighton's shoes for the OT goal in game six because if Roloson is in net the entire second half and playoffs would have been different. Maybe better, maybe worse. This is the speculation I am talking about. You are valuing these "could have been" speculative results that you KNOW would have happened in your mind over real, actual, results that did happen. Do you not understand this concept or are you just ignoring it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
You trade futures for Dwayne god damn Roloson. We didn't want Luongo/Thomas/Lundqvist and we didn't need one of them. We wanted a goalie who could occasionally make a difficult save. Holmgren trades away second rounders so that good players can leave town early to cover up for his cap boo boo's, he could've traded for a goalie.

The one thing that we haven't really addressed is that the playoffs weren't a given at the deadline. Perhaps Holmgren didn't even think they could make the play-offs, let alone make some noise once they got there. Why spend a second rounder on a goalie that won't make a difference to a team that's gonna scrape in. I'm still not letting him off the hook for it though, he should've pulled the trigger.
See above.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 12:32 PM
  #193
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,332
vCash: 500
The second half of the season very well might have gone better. It's more likely than not it would have. Leighton had to be pulled in a few games because he was Leightonesque, having a real goalie then would have been nice.

Having a better goalie is always a good thing. I don't think anybody has ever said "I sure am glad we have this bad goalie!"

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 12:41 PM
  #194
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GKJ View Post
You don't think Dwayne Roloson would have given the Flyers a better chance to beat Chicago than Michael Leighton?
It's not that simple. It's perfectly possible that a Dwayne Roloson-led Flyers team would have fallen to Boston in the 2nd round or even completely failed to qualify for the playoffs.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 12:42 PM
  #195
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,688
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
The second half of the season very well might have gone better. It's more likely than not it would have. Leighton had to be pulled in a few games because he was Leightonesque, having a real goalie then would have been nice.

Having a better goalie is always a good thing. I don't think anybody has ever said "I sure am glad we have this bad goalie!"
I really think you are not understanding what I am saying. I know Roloson is better than Leighton and I know it is better to have a better goalie. But just having a better goalie doesn't always equal more wins. Ask the Canucks, Devils, etc. Roloson played well in NY and very well may have played well in Philly. But he never played here so it is purely speculative to say how he would have played. Maybe the Flyers win the Atlantic with him net. Maybe they don't make the playoffs. Roloson would have made some of the saves Leighton didn't, for sure. But Leighton also made some saves that Roloson probably wouldn't have, both in the playoffs and regular season. Remember those three shutouts against the Canadiens? Leighton sucks I know and he had nothing to do with the team getting those shutouts blah blah blah, but do you really think that if you stick any other goalie in the NHL in that spot they are going to get three shutouts in that series? It doesn't work that way.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 12:46 PM
  #196
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
It's not that simple. It's perfectly possible that a Dwayne Roloson-led Flyers team would have fallen to Boston in the 2nd round or even completely failed to qualify for the playoffs.
Leighton had nothing to do with the Flyers getting to the playoffs or past Boston. Hell, Leighton and his 5 hole damn near costed us that series in game 7.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 12:46 PM
  #197
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
This team was playing out of its mind on defense. In fact, they were playing so well that apparently anybody could have been in net.

Roloson would have been fine.

edit: Ok DFF, if there's so much uncertainty around goalies, then was getting Bryzgalov a waste of time? Why bother improving in goal if you just don't know how it will go?
C'mon, this is so obvious. Future vs. past. It's one thing to have expectations for the future, but another thing altogether to pretend speculative results are valid to "alter" expected outcomes of events in the past. Butterfly Effect, etc.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 12:48 PM
  #198
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44 View Post
If it was only that simple. It's been made pretty clear, by the team's actions and every pre-season statement from the GM, coach and vets. Every time they laud players who came to camp early and in shape, who take care of themselves off the ice etc., it's made clear that the problems Carter and Richards were causing in the dressing room were tearing the team apart. The 'dead room' of conflict and resentment is gone in favour of a united team in an upbeat locker room who are all on the same page as the coaches.

I am not sure the Flyers won't win both those trades this year.

Simmonds is playing really well, and Schenn will be recalled soon and help the team. Voracek is playing really well at RW too, and Couturier is looking more and more like a keeper.

To have four contributing players with good attitudes in your lineup over two players who had alienated the coaching staff and their veteran linemates is a good thing. Add to that the genius strokes of replacing Betts with Talbot and Leino with Jagr, and the team looks much better than last year's team. Even Lilja is looking better and more mobile than O'Donnell....

Put a good goalie in front of the same dysfunctional team and you get the same result, which is why they made the changes they did.

Let em imbibe on the



While I haven't been the biggest Holmgren fan considering his many transgressions I laud the moves made this offseason. I don't give him full credit since a lot of it has Snider's shrewd business man prints on it but I still give him credit for executing the owner's mandate and from the looks of things doing a very good job.

How can you not feel optimistic about this team..sure it's early but anybody who has followed this team long enough and has good hockey sense can see that this team has the makings of being one of the better Flyer teams assembled. Reminds me of the way the 86-87 Flyers team that took a dynasty to 7 games was pieced together. They got players that fit within a structure and system (team speed) and they have the mix of solid vets, youth and legs to succeed. Sure we got a lot of rookies but they are high end rookies that will overcome the rough patches they no doubt will have to experience. With this team as long as they are healthy they will have a chance to win most every night. The team's success may not always translate to points b/c of the parity in the conference where any team can beat you on any given night especially if you are not prepared to compete which was a massive malaise with the teams we've had over the years.

People are dellusional if they think this malaise wasn't going to continue..it had to be addressed. I mean Snider specifically said in an interview he felt the team wasn't growing (his words) and showed too much inconsistency.

I just think people are being way to cynical with this team which I think is going to prove a lot the naysayers wrong ultimately. I'm not going to solely judge them in a transition year and make any sure bet conclusions like that they are cup material but they may just surprise. I said it after last season that Holmgren was at a crossroads....it was a make or break offseason for him. We needed some transformative change particularly culture wise and I think he's vindicated himself and extended the Flyers window for success very well. He is by no means the perfect GM as his cap management consistently proves but what I give him props for is that he doesn't rest on his laurels and he addresses his mistakes. In order to succeed in life you have to be flexible and show a willingness to rethink ideas. Again he is by no means perfect but he definitely executed a ballsy move this offseason with the spurring of the owner of course and I def think it will bode well going forward. Richards and Carter will be distant memories before too long....

With that I leave all the naysayers with another positive assessment by a member of the team.

Quote:
For a team composed of so many new parts, the Flyers have been remarkably cohesive. Rookie forward Matt Read said that while it "usually takes 20 or so games" for players to bond, the Flyers are beginning to "form an identity."

"We are reading each other well," he said. "And we are beginning to click. Hopefully, it will continue."


http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/...#ixzz1aaTBvDI4
I mean it's funny but the team is all giddy, showing great chemistry thus far on and off the ice, getting results in the standings and the naysayers are getting all frantic. I mean it's not even cautious optimism being projected but outright doom and gloom like

1) The rookies will flame out

2) The media is going to target new scapegoats and harangue them like Carter and Richards and these nebulous scapegoats will respond the same way and create disharmony.

3) Simmonds and other young players will be drinking and partying

4) The defense is going to suck b/c apparently there is no such thing as TEAM defense and playing as a unit within a system....you can only succeed with "shutdown" centerman the likes of Carter and Richards.

Now having said all this..sure there will be rough patches and we have our holes like with the faceoffs but they are not insurmountable. Major injures obviously play a part too.

In short, this team has great depth after restocking the cupboard of sorts. We are fast, young and so far motivated.

We will be fine this year and years to come..be positive.

Signed

Cool Aid Drinker

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 12:48 PM
  #199
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I really think you are not understanding what I am saying. I know Roloson is better than Leighton and I know it is better to have a better goalie. But just having a better goalie doesn't always equal more wins. Ask the Canucks, Devils, etc. Roloson played well in NY and very well may have played well in Philly. But he never played here so it is purely speculative to say how he would have played. Maybe the Flyers win the Atlantic with him net. Maybe they don't make the playoffs. Roloson would have made some of the saves Leighton didn't, for sure. But Leighton also made some saves that Roloson probably wouldn't have, both in the playoffs and regular season. Remember those three shutouts against the Canadiens? Leighton sucks I know and he had nothing to do with the team getting those shutouts blah blah blah, but do you really think that if you stick any other goalie in the NHL in that spot they are going to get three shutouts in that series? It doesn't work that way.
I can't think of any saves that Leighton made that a better goalie like Roloson wouldn't have. Hell, his most impressive save (the one used in the history will be made video) was a glove save most goalies would consider routine. It was also probably going wide.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 12:51 PM
  #200
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Leighton had nothing to do with the Flyers getting to the playoffs or past Boston. Hell, Leighton and his 5 hole damn near costed us that series in game 7.

1. That's illogical. Leighton was a successful goalie in the regular season and the Boston series. You have no grounds to say he had nothing to do with what happened.
2. Even if Leighton really had "nothing to do with" the Flyers succes that year, there is no way of knowing whether or not Hypothetical Dwayne Roloson would have had comparatively more to do with that same amount of success, OR if that same amount of success even would have occurred with Hypothetical Dwayne Roloson on the roster.

Damaged Goods 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 07:50 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.