HFBoards

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

Do we give Holmgren enough credit?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-14-2011, 09:42 AM
  #351
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,246
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
No it's not impossible to tell. Roloson is the better Goalie. Giroux will outscore Hartnell. Your fiction premise is irrelevant. That absolutely is the argument. Step into the Real World and how things are looked at. Not your theoretical fantasy land.
Well, my friend, then there is nothing left to say. If speculation is as good as reality because something is likely to happen, I am going to Vegas right this second and betting on every favorite and I'm going to make millions! Thank you for this lesson in reality. I am forever grateful!

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 09:42 AM
  #352
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,246
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
I keep forgetting...

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 09:44 AM
  #353
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dats81 View Post
Homer is definitely not afraid of making bold moves and he seems to get the important things done, which he should be given credit for. He built a really competitive team.

However, he sometimes completely screws the little things, like for instance not knowing the CBA regarding to waiver eligibility or 35+ contracts, or even signing too many prospects and getting in trouble in respect to the max contracts limit.
He doesn't get much support on that stuff from the rest of the organization...
Just because the Flyers argued that the Pronger contract shouldn't be considered a 35+ contract doesn't mean they didn't know the rule. Even when someone has a signed confession, multiple eye witness, DNA evidence and has the culprit on video committing the crime, the defendent still pleads not guilty. Same principle here, argue that it doesn't fall into the 35+ contract rule. Worse case scenario is that the NHL says it does.

I guess the real question would be: "If the Flyers had 20/20 hindsight on the Pronger contract, would they still offer it to him?" I seriously doubt the answer would be no.

Snotbubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 10:09 AM
  #354
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
Well, my friend, then there is nothing left to say. If speculation is as good as reality because something is likely to happen, I am going to Vegas right this second and betting on every favorite and I'm going to make millions! Thank you for this lesson in reality. I am forever grateful!

So Gm's should make moves based on random chance, because the ability to forecast the future with common sense is not infallible? Don't be ludicrous. Giving Leighton the reins and not getting a real NHL goalie did not give the team the best chance to win, and that is not a bunch of fans *****ing with the benefit of hindsight. We said it then and we're saying the same thing now.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 10:17 AM
  #355
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,246
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
So Gm's should make moves based on random chance, because the ability to forecast the future with common sense is not infallible? Don't be ludicrous. Giving Leighton the reins and not getting a real NHL goalie did not give the team the best chance to win, and that is not a bunch of fans *****ing with the benefit of hindsight. We said it then and we're saying the same thing now.
You are missing the argument. I am not saying that GMs shouldn't speculate as to what happens in the future. This entire argument started when Beef said that if Roloson was in net, the Flyers would have won. I said there is no way of telling. Then Beef and VS said yes it is because Roloson is better and the argument has gone on since then. I'm not saying sticking was Leighton was a good move (however, see my posts from last season on this topic). What I am saying, and have been all along in response to posters saying that Roloson would have gotten us a cup, speculation does not equal reality, no matter how likely it seems. VS seems to think that is not true. Just like his situation of Hartnell outscoring Giroux. It seems unlikely, and I certainly don't think it will happen. But until the season is over, it isn't fact.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 10:27 AM
  #356
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
You are missing the argument. I am not saying that GMs shouldn't speculate as to what happens in the future. This entire argument started when Beef said that if Roloson was in net, the Flyers would have won. I said there is no way of telling. Then Beef and VS said yes it is because Roloson is better and the argument has gone on since then. I'm not saying sticking was Leighton was a good move (however, see my posts from last season on this topic). What I am saying, and have been all along in response to posters saying that Roloson would have gotten us a cup, speculation does not equal reality, no matter how likely it seems. VS seems to think that is not true. Just like his situation of Hartnell outscoring Giroux. It seems unlikely, and I certainly don't think it will happen. But until the season is over, it isn't fact.
You're essentially saying that if their point isn't premised upon a certitude that it is invalid. Which is a bogus standard and really just a convenient and intellectually dishonest way of taking advantage of the certainty of the past to dismiss their point.

I don't think anyone ever took that side of the argument so far as to say it is a fact that Roloson would've gotten us a cup. I think their case is that it's a fact that getting Roloson at the deadline that year would've given the team a higher probability of winning. I don't think there is any debating that. Obviously it's not guaranteed they'd have gotten as far as they did if Roloson was in net, but they did it with a highly padded trash can (Boucher) and Michael "10 hole" Leighton . . . so c'mon.

Giroux tha Damaja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 10:30 AM
  #357
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Well, my friend, then there is nothing left to say. If speculation is as good as reality because something is likely to happen, I am going to Vegas right this second and betting on every favorite and I'm going to make millions! Thank you for this lesson in reality. I am forever grateful!
You obviously can't grasp how things are done in the Real World. You want to continually live in the theoretical World. That is not the reality of the NHL and how players are evaluated. And your repeated analogy such as this one that your going to go to Vegas and bet on all the favorites, has no bearing here.

You can say that Bryzgalov is an upgrade to what the Flyers have had in the past in the net, because he is. You can say that Giroux will outscore Hartnell because he is the better player and the better offensive scorer. And that's how a GM would look at it if he was making player evaluations. That's all that matters here.

Not your theoretical nonsense about fiction and speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
You are missing the argument. I am not saying that GMs shouldn't speculate as to what happens in the future. This entire argument started when Beef said that if Roloson was in net, the Flyers would have won. I said there is no way of telling. Then Beef and VS said yes it is because Roloson is better and the argument has gone on since then. I'm not saying sticking was Leighton was a good move (however, see my posts from last season on this topic). What I am saying, and have been all along in response to posters saying that Roloson would have gotten us a cup, speculation does not equal reality, no matter how likely it seems. VS seems to think that is not true. Just like his situation of Hartnell outscoring Giroux. It seems unlikely, and I certainly don't think it will happen. But until the season is over, it isn't fact.
I don't beleive that Invictus said that Roloson would get us a Cup. Neither did I ever say that the Flyers would have won with Roloson.

It's irrelevant that it isn't a fact that Giroux will outscore Hartnell. That's what you can't grasp. Then why not put Hartnell in Giroux's spot and play Hartnell on the first line with Jagr? Because it's not a fact that Giroux will produce more points than Hartnell because it hasn't happened yet. That it's not a fact is irrelevant. Your enitre basis for your argument is worthless. Your argument is the classic Red Herring.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 10:33 AM
  #358
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
You're essentially saying that if their point isn't premised upon a certitude that it is invalid. Which is a bogus standard and really just a convenient and intellectually dishonest way of taking advantage of the certainty of the past to dismiss their point.

I don't think anyone ever took that side of the argument so far as to say it is a fact that Roloson would've gotten us a cup. I think their case is that it's a fact that getting Roloson at the deadline that year would've given the team a higher probability of winning. I don't think there is any debating that. Obviously it's not guaranteed they'd have gotten as far as they did if Roloson was in net, but they did it with a highly padded trash can (Boucher) and Michael "10 hole" Leighton . . . so c'mon.
Exactly! It really is a simple concept to understand. But were given definitions of words and references to Wikipedia. Ridiculous.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 10:42 AM
  #359
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,246
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
You obviously can't grasp how things are done in the Real World. You want to continually live in the theoretical World. That is not the reality of the NHL and how players are evaluated. And your repeated analogy such as this one that your going to go to Vegas and bet on all the favorites, has no bearing here.

You can say that Bryzgalov is an upgrade to what the Flyers have had in the past in the net, because he is. You can say that Giroux will outscore Hartnell because he is the better player and the better offensive scorer. And that's how a GM would look at it if he was making player evaluations. That's all that matters here.

Not your theoretical nonsense about fiction and speculation.



I don't beleive that Invictus said that Roloson would get us a Cup. Neither did I ever say that the Flyers would have won with Roloson.

It's irrelevant that it isn't a fact that Giroux will outscore Hartnell. That's what you can't grasp. Then why not put Hartnell in Giroux's spot and play Hartnell on the first line with Jagr? Because it's not a fact that Giroux will produce more points than Hartnell because it hasn't happened yet. That it's not a fact is irrelevant. Your enitre basis for your argument is worthless. Your argument is the classic Red Herring.
Ok, I'm going to say this one last time because every time I respond you respond with essentially the same thing and this is just getting nonsensical. I am not saying that you can't speculate to future things or that that is not how things are done or that because something hasn't happened means it won't happen. Yes Giroux is better. Yes Bryz is better. You put them on the ice because of this and switch them for players they are better than. That is the role of the GM. But this entire argument was started saying that Roloson would have performed better than Leighton. Whether or not Homer made the right choice is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about, and have been talking about, is whether or not speculation of what could have happened is an exercise in futility. You seem to think it is not, while I think it is. Then you throw stuff in about GMs making choices and this and that, which I am agreeing with you on basically every point but still feel it necessary to repeat over and over again while shooting down the proposition that speculation does not equal reality.

As far as the Roloson vs. Leighton scenario goes, where this all started. You are right. No one used the exact language that Roloson would have gotten us a cup, this is true. But you argued he would perform better, based purely on speculation. On paper, yes he would have given us a better chance, but as I have repeatedly said, on paper is worthless, just ask every favored team that has ever lost. Leighton was in net in game 6 of the SCF. If you are arguing Roloson would have played better but not won the Cup, then what are you upset about, you'd rather have lost in game 7? So I implied you meant that Roloson playing better means a Cup.

My response to this argument was that you can't tell whether or not this was true because it is all speculation and switching Roloson for Leighton is not a 1-1 switch and because he has better skill means more wins. That isn't how it works. Just like Giroux, while clearly better than Hartnell, is not guaranteed to score more goals. As you pointed out earlier, an injury could occur, preventing him to this. I am not saying a GM should not go after a better player because there is a chance he won't perform. What I am saying, and have been saying, is that if something has yet to happen, no matter how likely, it does not mean that it will happen.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 10:56 AM
  #360
SgtJoseph
Registered User
 
SgtJoseph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northwest Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 3,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux tha Damaja View Post
So Gm's should make moves based on random chance, because the ability to forecast the future with common sense is not infallible? Don't be ludicrous. Giving Leighton the reins and not getting a real NHL goalie did not give the team the best chance to win, and that is not a bunch of fans *****ing with the benefit of hindsight. We said it then and we're saying the same thing now.
I think Homer had a little HELP with the whole Michael Leighton signing.I gotta believe coach Lavy played a key role in steering Homer in Leightons direction due to Leighton having recently played for Lavy in Carolina etc.....Perhaps what Homer is guilty of is his being loyal to his coach ?And having said that, Michael Leighton won quite a few games and posted quite a few shut outs during that run while under tremendous pressure.....And for that alone i have no hate for Michael Leighton at all and wish him the best.

SgtJoseph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 10:58 AM
  #361
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,249
vCash: 500
It may be speculation that Roloson could have brought us a cup and not averaged 4 goals per game and under 90 % save percentage in the finals but it is a fact that Leighton sucked bad and he was a major factor...not the only factor why we dont have a cup.

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 11:02 AM
  #362
phlocky
Registered User
 
phlocky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,135
vCash: 500
This thread should just be closed as it's degraded into just a pissing contest.

phlocky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 11:06 AM
  #363
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,246
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlocky View Post
This thread should just be closed as it's degraded into just a pissing contest.
That would make my day.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 11:24 AM
  #364
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Ok, I'm going to say this one last time because every time I respond you respond with essentially the same thing and this is just getting nonsensical. I am not saying that you can't speculate to future things or that that is not how things are done or that because something hasn't happened means it won't happen. Yes Giroux is better. Yes Bryz is better. You put them on the ice because of this and switch them for players they are better than. That is the role of the GM. But this entire argument was started saying that Roloson would have performed better than Leighton. Whether or not Homer made the right choice is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about, and have been talking about, is whether or not speculation of what could have happened is an exercise in futility. You seem to think it is not, while I think it is. Then you throw stuff in about GMs making choices and this and that, which I am agreeing with you on basically every point but still feel it necessary to repeat over and over again while shooting down the proposition that speculation does not equal reality.
What you don't get and seem to be incapable of grasping is that your point that speculation does not equal reality, is irrelevant. It has zero bearing here. That is the only Red Herring here.
And no that's not what we are talking about. It may be what you want to talk about. But I'm talking about the real world of Pro Hockey. In line with the subject of this entire thread which is do we give Holmgren enough credit. You went off on this wild goose chase of word definitions, wikipedia references, and rules of debate, and all of that nonsense. The only thing nonsensical is your entire argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
As far as the Roloson vs. Leighton scenario goes, where this all started. You are right. No one used the exact language that Roloson would have gotten us a cup, this is true. But you argued he would perform better, based purely on speculation. On paper, yes he would have given us a better chance, but as I have repeatedly said, on paper is worthless, just ask every favored team that has ever lost. Leighton was in net in game 6 of the SCF. If you are arguing Roloson would have played better but not won the Cup, then what are you upset about, you'd rather have lost in game 7? So I implied you meant that Roloson playing better means a Cup.
Your woefully incorrect in stating that I argued that he would perform better is based purely on speculation. You couldn't be more incorrect. It's based on that Roloson is simply a better Goalie. And to be more specific all I said was that it was reasonable to expect that Roloson would make the saves that Leighton did. Because you offered the speculation that maybe he wouldn't, maybe he would be worse. Which goes all the way around full circle back to your irrelevant argument. That because it hasn't happened yet, it is fiction.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
My response to this argument was that you can't tell whether or not this was true because it is all speculation and switching Roloson for Leighton is not a 1-1 switch and because he has better skill means more wins. That isn't how it works. Just like Giroux, while clearly better than Hartnell, is not guaranteed to score more goals. As you pointed out earlier, an injury could occur, preventing him to this. I am not saying a GM should not go after a better player because there is a chance he won't perform. What I am saying, and have been saying, is that if something has yet to happen, no matter how likely, it does not mean that it will happen.
Which is irrelevant to the real World of Hockey. And how a GM makes moves. It is a 1-1 switch. It's putting a better player in and upgrading the position. That's what a GM does. He can't go out and play.

Hockey isn't Quantum Physics. If you think it's not reality that Giroux will outscore Hartnell, then maybe badminton is the game for you.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 11:28 AM
  #365
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
That would make my day.
No one is forcing you to hit the reply button.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 11:47 AM
  #366
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,246
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
What you don't get and seem to be incapable of grasping is that your point that speculation does not equal reality, is irrelevant. It has zero bearing here. That is the only Red Herring here.
And no that's not what we are talking about. It may be what you want to talk about. But I'm talking about the real world of Pro Hockey. In line with the subject of this entire thread which is do we give Holmgren enough credit. You went off on this wild goose chase of word definitions, wikipedia references, and rules of debate, and all of that nonsense. The only thing nonsensical is your entire argument.
It is what we are talking about though. Go back to where this all started. I believe Beef was saying that if X, Y, and Z, happened, the result would have been A, B, and C. I simply said that its too speculative to say that and since it already happened, the speculative results are not worth as much as the actual results. That's not opinion, that is life. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to say. Furthermore, if this isn't what we are talking about, why are you responding and saying things like Giroux will outscore Hartnell and that is a fact. If we aren't talking about that why do you keep saying it? The GM issue, which is also being talked about, I am agreeing with you 100%. A GM's job is to speculate and go after better talent blah blah blah. That is fine. I am not arguing that, and yet you keep responding as though I am.



Quote:
Your woefully incorrect in stating that I argued that he would perform better is based purely on speculation. You couldn't be more incorrect. It's based on that Roloson is simply a better Goalie. And to be more specific all I said was that it was reasonable to expect that Roloson would make the saves that Leighton did. Because you offered the speculation that maybe he wouldn't, maybe he would be worse. Which goes all the way around full circle back to your irrelevant argument. That because it hasn't happened yet, it is fiction.
I don't know how to respond to this other than more talent doesn't = equal better results. On paper, yes, more talent gives you a better chance at better results. But that doesn't guarantee anything. If it did, why play the games?


Quote:
Which is irrelevant to the real World of Hockey. And how a GM makes moves. It is a 1-1 switch. It's putting a better player in and upgrading the position. That's what a GM does. He can't go out and play.
Once again, you either miss the point or are just flat out ignoring it. I am agreeing with you, and have been, 100% on this. GMs speculate to achieve future results. Yes. That is his job. No one is, or ever will argue that. But that is different that speculating about what could have been vs. actual results. Again, if you don't understand that I don't know what else to tell you.

Quote:
Hockey isn't Quantum Physics. If you think it's not reality that Giroux will outscore Hartnell, then maybe badminton is the game for you.
So if Giroux goes down with an injury tomorrow and is out for the season, how will he outscore Hartnell?

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 12:05 PM
  #367
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 30,678
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post


So if Giroux goes down with an injury tomorrow and is out for the season, how will he outscore Hartnell?
and what if the sun explodes tomorrow.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 12:37 PM
  #368
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
It is what we are talking about though. Go back to where this all started. I believe Beef was saying that if X, Y, and Z, happened, the result would have been A, B, and C. I simply said that its too speculative to say that and since it already happened, the speculative results are not worth as much as the actual results. That's not opinion, that is life. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to say. Furthermore, if this isn't what we are talking about, why are you responding and saying things like Giroux will outscore Hartnell and that is a fact. If we aren't talking about that why do you keep saying it? The GM issue, which is also being talked about, I am agreeing with you 100%. A GM's job is to speculate and go after better talent blah blah blah. That is fine. I am not arguing that, and yet you keep responding as though I am.
No it's not what we were talking about. It's the irrelvant direction you chose to take the conversation.Who says we aren't talking about Giroux outscoring Hartnell. That is relevant to the conversation because it points out how GM's make decisions. Why they choose a better player to upgrade a position. Beef was correct in his opinion that he offered. And your also wrong that I keep responding that your arguing that a GM's job is to speculate. What I'm arguing is that you have no argument. Your argument is a Red Herring. Your premise of that if it hasn't happened yet, it is fiction, is irrelevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post


I don't know how to respond to this other than more talent doesn't = equal better results. On paper, yes, more talent gives you a better chance at better results. But that doesn't guarantee anything. If it did, why play the games?
Do we need to go back and review talent and it's role? Because we've already done that. It's simply about being a better player. Putting Roloson in net last year at the deadline, would've given the Flyers a better player. Signing Bryzgalov is putting a better player in net. Why is he better? Because he is a proven #1 top NHL Goalie. How hard of a concept is that to grasp?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post

Once again, you either miss the point or are just flat out ignoring it. I am agreeing with you, and have been, 100% on this. GMs speculate to achieve future results. Yes. That is his job. No one is, or ever will argue that. But that is different that speculating about what could have been vs. actual results. Again, if you don't understand that I don't know what else to tell you.
I didn't miss the point. You don't have a relevant point. And I'm not ignoring anything. Again, you don't seem to be able to move out of the theoretical World and into the Real World and the jist of the thread or the conversation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
So if Giroux goes down with an injury tomorrow and is out for the season, how will he outscore Hartnell?
Clearly, I said multiple times, that the only unknown variable that is real, that would stop Giroux from outscoring Hartnell, is a serious injury. Do I need to go back and point that out to you? Again, as far as relevance. Would a GM not sign a better player because it's not a fact that he won't get injured. That it's unkown that he won't get injured? So how does that apply? It doeesn't.
This is a very simple grade school level concept. You deal in what you can control, not what you can't.

Dispense with theory and deal with what is practical.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 12:53 PM
  #369
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,246
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
No it's not what we were talking about. It's the irrelvant direction you chose to take the conversation.Who says we aren't talking about Giroux outscoring Hartnell. That is relevant to the conversation because it points out how GM's make decisions. Why they choose a better player to upgrade a position. Beef was correct in his opinion that he offered. And your also wrong that I keep responding that your arguing that a GM's job is to speculate. What I'm arguing is that you have no argument. Your argument is a Red Herring. Your premise of that if it hasn't happened yet, it is fiction, is irrelevant.




Do we need to go back and review talent and it's role? Because we've already done that. It's simply about being a better player. Putting Roloson in net last year at the deadline, would've given the Flyers a better player. Signing Bryzgalov is putting a better player in net. Why is he better? Because he is a proven #1 top NHL Goalie. How hard of a concept is that to grasp?



I didn't miss the point. You don't have a relevant point. And I'm not ignoring anything. Again, you don't seem to be able to move out of the theoretical World and into the Real World and the jist of the thread or the conversation.




Clearly, I said multiple times, that the only unknown variable that is real, that would stop Giroux from outscoring Hartnell, is a serious injury. Do I need to go back and point that out to you? Again, as far as relevance. Would a GM not sign a better player because it's not a fact that he won't get injured. That it's unkown that he won't get injured? So how does that apply? It doeesn't.
This is a very simple grade school level concept. You deal in what you can control, not what you can't.

Dispense with theory and deal with what is practical.


That's all I've got. You win.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 01:08 PM
  #370
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post


That's all I've got. You win.
That was decided a long time ago. You deal in practical realities. Not theoretical nonsense that has no bearing on the real life world of pro sports. Here's a hint for you. If you find yourself posting definitions to words, and obscure wikipedia references on the rules of debate, then maybe you should bow out. I'm sure there's a website somewhere where that is relevant.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 01:18 PM
  #371
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,246
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
That was decided a long time ago. You deal in practical realities. Not theoretical nonsense that has no bearing on the real life world of pro sports. Here's a hint for you. If you find yourself posting definitions to words, and obscure wikipedia references on the rules of debate, then maybe you should bow out. I'm sure there's a website somewhere where that is relevant.
Yup.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 01:21 PM
  #372
Prongo
Beer
 
Prongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 13,841
vCash: 500
Is our board the only one that argues as much as we do?? We have certain people on here that just love to argue with other fans from their team? Its okay to have a discussion but **** all you people do is insult each other and take parting shot even when the other person says they are done

Prongo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 05:16 PM
  #373
Doyle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,151
vCash: 500
Holmgren’s Forward Thinking Improves Flyers Overall Offensive Depth
http://nhlhotstove.com/holmgrens-for...fensive-depth/

Doyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2011, 08:08 AM
  #374
Ironmanrulez
Rookie Mistake
 
Ironmanrulez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Cologne, Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 407
vCash: 500
Itīs way too early to say that all the trades are good.
Itīs way too early to say that we are a good team or a better team.
Itīs way too early to call Read a top rookie.
Itīs way too early say Jagr will be good the whole year.
Itīs way too early to say homer is a genius because of this offseason...


bad article in my opinion.

When we look back at last year:

Meszaros and OīDonnell were one of the best dman in the league with +20 after the first half of the season. All of us say the meszaros deal and the odonnel signing was a perfect fit. After the season all of us say, pls donīt resign Odonnell he is too slow and must retire.....

Same with Bob or Carle or Pronger .....


If we win the division after the season i will say Homer has it done very well. But before its way too early in my opinion.

Ironmanrulez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2011, 12:01 PM
  #375
sobrien
RAFFLCOPTER
 
sobrien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: South Jersey/Memphis
Country: United States
Posts: 6,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmanrulez View Post
Itīs way too early to say that all the trades are good.
Itīs way too early to say that we are a good team or a better team.
Itīs way too early to call Read a top rookie.
Itīs way too early say Jagr will be good the whole year.
Itīs way too early to say homer is a genius because of this offseason...


bad article in my opinion.

When we look back at last year:

Meszaros and OīDonnell were one of the best dman in the league with +20 after the first half of the season. All of us say the meszaros deal and the odonnel signing was a perfect fit. After the season all of us say, pls donīt resign Odonnell he is too slow and must retire.....

Same with Bob or Carle or Pronger .....


If we win the division after the season i will say Homer has it done very well. But before its way too early in my opinion.
I consider Homer a genius for turning us into the worst team in the league to a Eastern Conference finalist in 1 season. Of course he had spending money. Now that he never has spending money, we often end up in trouble.

Meszaros and O'Donnell rode the offensive coattails of the HBL line last season. O'Donnell was a good pickup for a 6th defenseman, but he also noticeably wore down as the season went on. He certainly shouldn't define Homer's reign of madness and success.

sobrien is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29 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. Đ2014 All Rights Reserved.