HFBoards

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

Will the Flyers win the Cup in the next 5 years?

View Poll Results: Yes or No
NO 37 41.57%
YES 52 58.43%
Voters: 89. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-14-2012, 08:00 PM
  #51
DumpyD
Registered User
 
DumpyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 638
vCash: 500
Voted no.

Because philly.

DumpyD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 09:37 PM
  #52
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING View Post
Not really. That's Lavi propaganda you're regurgitating.
No. Saying the coach is spewing propaganda when asked to describe his system is literally makes no sense whatsoever, considering the average fan doesn't care a ton about the technical aspects of systems. He has no reason to spin anything.

First, a hockey system incorporates offense and defense. Second, the lock is an aggressive system, that emphasises forechecking, and backchecking. The lock is characterized by the C, and RW forechecking and forcing the play. The LW stays high, and the RD pinches to keep the puck in. The LW drops back into coverage when possession changes hands.

Lavi's system is similar, but more aggressive. The first two men in forecheck, the third forward is supposed to stay high. Both D are activated to pinch, which increases the pressure on the forwards to get back. The forwards are the key in the left wing lock, they have to be responsible, and backcheck hard.

Lavi had this in Carolina, and they won a cup. He had it here in 2010, and they went to a cup. He had it in 2011 when we were rampaging the league before injuries and whatever locker room issues, if any, arose.

Look at the players we had in the top 6 before. Richards, Carter, Hartnell, Gagne, Leino were all good to very good two way players. Yes Leino was good when healthy.
This year we had Hartnell and Voracek as our only 2-way players in the top 6. The forwards being good defensively are the key to the lock, in any form, working.

Quote:
They played defense first, and won a cup. So did Boston and LA.
Pitt played defense first, and won a cup... The year they lost the cup to Detroit they allowed 2.15 G/A per game in the playoffs, and 2.58 G/A in the regular season.

The year they won the cup they allowed 2.67 G/A in the playoffs, and 2.84 G/A in the regular season. The playoff numbers were substantially worse than Detroit.

The difference. Their offense was better in both the regular season, and playoffs the year they won the cup.

Care to try again?

Quote:
The Blackhawks were a defense first team. Just because they have some guys who are good with the puck on their stick and flashy offensively doesn't mean they don't play defense first.
Again, this is just wrong. Go ask Chicago fans if they played a defense first system. Did you watch the finals? Having good defensive players, is not the same as having a defense first system. The Devils had a defense first system. The Blues have a defense first system. Chicago was worlds away from that.


Their biggest defensive weapon was their offense, and their ability to move the puck. Their breakouts were ridiculous. That isn't defense.

Quote:
As far as the Red Wings go, you're out in left field with that drivel. They BROUGHT the left wing lock to the NHL. Barry Smith learned it in Czechoslovakia and introduced it to Bowman.

If the Blackhawks were this "puck possession" team that you claim them to be, where did they rank among the teams that year in possession time?
There are no time of possession stats available to the public that I'm aware of. At a conference at MIT Detroit's GM stressed the importance of their own in house developed puck possession metrics in evalutaing players and lines. The closest, easy thing I can think of is shots for vs shots against. Chicago lead the league in shots, and had the highest shot for/against differential in the NHL that year. It would appear they were very good at possessing the puck, and generating offense.


Quote:
I had to LOL at this one. So GM's and coaches go in for interviews and the owner asks, "What are you going to do to bring me a cup?"

Prospective coach or GM says, "We will hopefully be good, hopefully be healthy and hopefully get a good matchup in the playoffs, and will need some luck too."

Yeah that's all it takes.
Well, let's ask the owner.

I honestly think if Pronger and Meszaros had been healthy in the playoffs, we would have won the whole thing,” Snider said. “I don’t like to cry about injuries, buy you just can’t lose a Pronger and replace him. And then on top of that, you lose Meszaros and [Marc-Andre] Bourdon."

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...e-whole-thing/


Mr. Snider seems to think health was the single determining factor in the Flyers losing not winning the cup.

How about 2004? Do you think health played no role in the Flyers playoff run that year?

"We all talk about goaltending as the great springtime scourge in Philadelphia, but defensive injuries might have short-circuited more good playoff runs than anything. The all-timer was probably in 2004: five games against New Jersey, six merciless games against Toronto, and then seven games against Tampa Bay. It was Ken Hitchcock's best chance to win a Stanley Cup as the Flyers' coach, and it did not happen for the simple reason that the team had no defensemen left by the end."

http://articles.philly.com/2012-04-2...r-danny-markov

Let's continue.

"Competitive parity also increases the role of luck. The idea is that as the skill levels of the participants converge, the standard deviation of skill narrows and luck becomes more prominent (in activities that allow for luck).Convergence of skill can result from weaker players getting better, the dissemination of cheaper and more uniform information, or from athletes approaching biomechanical limits, slowing the rate of improvement. You might call it the paradox of skill: high and uniform skill levels suggest that luck becomes a larger determinant of outcomes. In activities that have little luck, including running and swimming races, you simply get lots of very close finishes. Some professional sports leagues use tools like salary caps to encourage parity in skill, seeking a more uniform distribution of winners over time."

http://www.lmcm.com/868299.pdf

How about some more. From Baseball Between the Numbers by the folks at Baseball Prospectus.

"Every supposed rule “defense wins championships,” “you have to play smallball to win” an experienced team performs better in the playoffs” has far too many exceptions. 2003 Marlins were below average defensively, the 2004 Red Sox disdained smallball, and the 2005 White Sox had no playoff experience.

That there is a tremendous amount of luck involved in the playoffs is an incontrovertible mathematical fact."



Quote:
Yes, as a 17 pt favorite they LOST to a team that stressed DEFENSE, the New England Patriots. Since Belichick became a 50+ pass a game guy and got away from
defense first, he hasn't won a SB. He lost the last two to a DEFENSE FIRST team, the NYG
So you're discounting the championship they won. That's interesting. How about the Colts, or the Saints. Do their Championships not count? Maybe the Packers, does their's count?

How about the 49er's teams of the past, or the Cowboys of the 90's? Good defenses yes, but also great offenses. See that's what I was talking about when I said "most balanced."

And lets talk about that DEFENSE FIRST team the NYG. They're were 25th in scoring defense last year. Yea, 25th out of 32. I'll get to more on defense and championships next.

Quote:
The Cardinals had the third best pitching in the postseason that year, and out pitched the Philles. Remember Carpenter in game 7 out pitching the Doctor himself in his own yard.



That's the exception, not the rule. Just like the aberration in Carolina.



Another exception and not the rule. Leighton didn't win a cup, and Niemi is far better than Michael Leighton.

First off, the Phils had a lower ERA than the Cards that series. Second, being 3rd out of 8 is kind of like being mediocre. At the very least it doesn't tell you much. However, they did score 100 freaking runs in the playoffs last year. Obviously the most, and most per game, of any team in the playoffs. It's defense though that wins.


Quote:
No, defense wins a large majority of the time and usually rules the day.
Let's put that theory to the test shall we.

If my counting is right, 10 of the last 20 cup winners had defenses that were top 10 in the league. That seems roughly like half...you know like I said before. Of those 20 cup winners, 12 of them had offenses in the top 10.

So more teams with good offenses have won than teams with good defenses.

Let's continue with another excerpt from article.

"Let’s not kid ourselves. No matter how great your offense is, of course you want a great defense to go along with it. But the idea that a great defense is some magic bullet – able to transcend gravity, logic, and time – is something we should probably stick in the drawer. Unless, of course, you’re the grizzled old coach who invented the cliché. It is a catchy saying, and you, sir, are entitled to use it forever, untrue as it may be."

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/02/...onship-cliche/

Here are the statistical studies that article sites.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008...pionships.html

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/...championships/

From those studies:

"We found that when it comes to winning a title, or winning in sports in general for that matter, offense and defense carry nearly identical weight. For example, here’s what Berman didn’t tell you: the number of Super Bowl champs with a top 10 offense? Thirty-eight. And a top 3 offense? Twenty. In other words, offense wins championships, too."

Balance again.

"Admittedly, there are some special qualities about the playoffs. The outdoor weather in northern cities can be extreme, and the home team is more often the better team. Weather may indeed affect the balance of offense and defense, but it likely affects the balance between running and passing games more. And weather affects both opponents in a game, so it's not clear if it really matters. Playoff weather could also be analyzed in further research."

I'd categorize this as luck/other.

"So when looking at the NFL as a whole, offense and defense balances symmetrically."

Balance again.

"But when focusing on the right tails of performance, where playoff teams come from, we see that great offenses out-pace equally great defenses"

Quote:
Besides Clarke and his idiotic "If the players play good the goalie plays good" garbage, almost every cup winner is built from the net out. That's the right way, otherwise we would have goalies like Niemi winning cups every year. That doesn't happen.
Do we have great goalies winning every year? Seriously, there have been more above-average goalies then great goalies that have won cups. There are plenty of teams built from the net out that haven't done squat in recent memory. The Rangers for example, have not done well until this past year because they lack balance.



Quote:
There are 30 GM's, and they all will never build their teams the exact same way. For starters there aren't enough stud goalies to go around. Whoever plays the best defensively, and it is almost always a defense first team, usually with a stud goalie, wins the cup.
I've already shown this isn't actually true.


Quote:
Yeah the Kings were real balanced. You have such love for Lavy and his pond hockey you can't objectively look at the facts, and what wins 99% of the time in this league. You can cling to the false hope that racing up and down the ice will bring a cup here, but it hasn't and it never will.

Lombardi had a plan. It started with Taylor drafting Quick, and the team was built from the net out and played defense first. That's why they have the cup.
Yes the Kings were balanced. Once Richards got healthy, and traded for Carter they finally had secondary scoring. Which made them balanced, and separated them from a team like the Rangers who are all defense and goalie.

I usually don't respond with this many quotes, and such. I like to keep things in my own words. However, I provided my thoughts for you, and you responded with an LOL. If you still liked to LOL, then you can go bring it up with Mr. Snider, and the authors, sportswriters, and mathematicians I quoted in this response.

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 10:21 PM
  #53
Phileeguy
Mira, que linda.
 
Phileeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 4,452
vCash: 500
I'm an optimistic pessimist here. Or perhaps a pessimistic optimist. Either way I voted yes, mostly because I'd like to see it, but also because I know this organization always tries. And I'm hoping I'm right 'cuz I still think the Sixers are years away, the Eagles still have Reid, and the Phils are scuffling and the best years of their main guys may be behind them.

Phileeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 01:45 AM
  #54
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
No. Saying the coach is spewing propaganda when asked to describe his system is literally makes no sense whatsoever, considering the average fan doesn't care a ton about the technical aspects of systems. He has no reason to spin anything.
Yes he does, especially after Homer came out and said what he did after the season about the lack of defense in Lavi’s system. Thirty minutes later Lavi is defending it to the press. I guess you missed that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
First, a hockey system incorporates offense and defense. Second, the lock is an aggressive system, that emphasises forechecking, and backchecking. The lock is characterized by the C, and RW forechecking and forcing the play. The LW stays high, and the RD pinches to keep the puck in. The LW drops back into coverage when possession changes hands.

Lavi's system is similar, but more aggressive. The first two men in forecheck, the third forward is supposed to stay high. Both D are activated to pinch, which increases the pressure on the forwards to get back. The forwards are the key in the left wing lock, they have to be responsible, and backcheck hard.

Lavi had this in Carolina, and they won a cup. He had it here in 2010, and they went to a cup. He had it in 2011 when we were rampaging the league before injuries and whatever locker room issues, if any, arose.

Look at the players we had in the top 6 before. Richards, Carter, Hartnell, Gagne, Leino were all good to very good two way players. Yes Leino was good when healthy.
This year we had Hartnell and Voracek as our only 2-way players in the top 6. The forwards being good defensively are the key to the lock, in any form, working.
Lavi winning a cup in Carolina was an aberration. Teams didn’t win cups before Lavi did playing that way, and they haven’t won that way since.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Pitt played defense first, and won a cup...
Exactly, but just during that playoff year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
The year they lost the cup to Detroit they allowed 2.15 G/A per game in the playoffs, and 2.58 G/A in the regular season. The year they won the cup they allowed 2.67 G/A in the playoffs, and 2.84 G/A in the regular season. The playoff numbers were substantially worse than Detroit.
But their defense first system and commitment to it, won them a cup that postseason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
The difference. Their offense was better in both the regular season, and playoffs the year they won the cup.
No, their defense first system won them a cup that postseason. You can try to twist numbers all day long, bottom line is once Pitt committed to defense first, a cup was won.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Care to try again?
No, but you may if you find more numbers to twist and misrepresent the facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Again, this is just wrong. Go ask Chicago fans if they played a defense first system.
Yeah the fans. That’s where all the answers are found.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Did you watch the finals?
Yes. One series (6 games) is far from telling you the answer you think you know. That team played around 100 games that year. You can keep extrapolating your opinion from a 6 game series, I’ll look at the body of work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Having good defensive players, is not the same as having a defense first system. The Devils had a defense first system. The Blues have a defense first system. Chicago was worlds away from that. Their biggest defensive weapon was their offense, and their ability to move the puck. Their breakouts were ridiculous. That isn't defense. There are no time of possession stats available to the public that I'm aware of.
So no facts to support this “puck possession” theory of yours? Maybe I should check with the fans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
At a conference at MIT Detroit's GM stressed the importance of their own in house developed puck possession metrics in evalutaing players and lines. The closest, easy thing I can think of is shots for vs shots against. Chicago lead the league in shots, and had the highest shot for/against differential in the NHL that year. It would appear they were very good at possessing the puck, and generating offense.
No, they were good at minimizing opponents shots because they played defense first. 5th best defensive team in the NHL during the season. Without puck possession time #’s, your theory can’t be supported and collapses like the a dandelion on a hot summer day.

MIT conference? Really? Try finding out a little something about Barry Smith before you bring up MIT Conferences. Sorry but defense first systems aren’t developed at university conferences. LMAO.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Well, let's ask the owner.
Laughing as I type this one. Yeah let’s ask the owner, the one who outspent almost every team in the league for years in the pre-cap era, (sometimes the highest payroll), hasn’t won a cup in 37 years, and still hasn’t found the right architect to construct a champion. That guy is the authority on how to build cup winners.

He’s a great businessman, but 37 years without a cup pretty much speaks for itself. You have to bring someone with a little championship mojo to the table if you want to support your good matchup, stay healthy, try to be good, get lucky blueprint to a cup theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
I honestly think if Pronger and Meszaros had been healthy in the playoffs, we would have won the whole thing,” Snider said. “I don’t like to cry about injuries, buy you just can’t lose a Pronger and replace him. And then on top of that, you lose Meszaros and [Marc-Andre] Bourdon."http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...e-whole-thing/
Mr. Snider seems to think health was the single determining factor in the Flyers losing not winning the cup.
Regurgitating Ed’s excuses doesn’t lend support to your theory. Care to try again?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
How about 2004? Do you think health played no role in the Flyers playoff run that year?
A small role, but Tampa was the better defensive team in the ECF, that is the biggest reason they won.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
"We all talk about goaltending as the great springtime scourge in Philadelphia, but defensive injuries might have short-circuited more good playoff runs than anything. The all-timer was probably in 2004: five games against New Jersey, six merciless games against Toronto, and then seven games against Tampa Bay. It was Ken Hitchcock's best chance to win a Stanley Cup as the Flyers' coach, and it did not happen for the simple reason that the team had no defensemen left by the end."

http://articles.philly.com/2012-04-2...r-danny-markov
More regurgitation of excuses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Let's continue.

"Competitive parity also increases the role of luck. The idea is that as the skill levels of the participants converge, the standard deviation of skill narrows and luck becomes more prominent (in activities that allow for luck).Convergence of skill can result from weaker players getting better, the dissemination of cheaper and more uniform information, or from athletes approaching biomechanical limits, slowing the rate of improvement. You might call it the paradox of skill: high and uniform skill levels suggest that luck becomes a larger determinant of outcomes. In activities that have little luck, including running and swimming races, you simply get lots of very close finishes. Some professional sports leagues use tools like salary caps to encourage parity in skill, seeking a more uniform distribution of winners over time."

http://www.lmcm.com/868299.pdf
The teams that play defense first will still continue to win cups, no matter how much luck you or anyone else thinks is involved. The Kings didn’t get lucky, they won because of their defense first style of play. They didn’t win the cup playing Lavi style pond hockey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
How about some more. From Baseball Between the Numbers by the folks at Baseball Prospectus.

"Every supposed rule “defense wins championships,” “you have to play smallball to win” an experienced team performs better in the playoffs” has far too many exceptions. 2003 Marlins were below average defensively, the 2004 Red Sox disdained smallball, and the 2005 White Sox had no playoff experience.

That there is a tremendous amount of luck involved in the playoffs is an incontrovertible mathematical fact."
There’s an old saying, “offense plays the game, defense wins the game.” Yeah luck and health is what does it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
So you're discounting the championship they won. That's interesting.
Not at all. More than a coincidence that they won them as a team built around their defense. How did they beat the greatest show on turf? By outscoring them 55-52? NO. THEY WON IT WITH DEFENSE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
How about the Colts, or the Saints. Do their Championships not count? Maybe the Packers, does their's count?
The Colts didn’t win squat until Dungy, a DEFENSIVE COACH, arrived and drastically improved the defense. That unit was 29th out of 32 teams two years before winning the Super Bowl.

The Saints, the aberration, similar to Carolina. No surprise you bring them up.

Packers, 5th best defensive team in the NFL the year they won the Super Bowl. Try again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
How about the 49er's teams of the past, or the Cowboys of the 90's? Good defenses yes, but also great offenses. See that's what I was talking about when I said "most balanced."
49ers 1981 2nd ranked defense
49ers 1984 10th ranked defense
49ers 1988 3rd ranked defense
49ers 1989 4th ranked defense
49ers 1994 8th ranked defense

Cowboys 1992 1st ranked defense
Cowboys 1993 9th ranked defense
Cowboys 1995 9th ranked defense

Those aren’t good defenses, they are great defenses by any objective measure. Funny how you leave out the Ravens, Buccaneers, and 85 Bears. Good thing you did though, it would have only made your theory look even more preposterous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
And lets talk about that DEFENSE FIRST team the NYG. They're were 25th in scoring defense last year. Yea, 25th out of 32. I'll get to more on defense and championships next.
OK. 3rd best defense in the playoffs last year. That team has been built around their defense since the days of Parcells.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
First off, the Phils had a lower ERA than the Cards that series.
They outpitched the Phillies in that series, that’s why they won.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Second, being 3rd out of 8 is kind of like being mediocre. At the very least it doesn't tell you much. However, they did score 100 freaking runs in the playoffs last year. Obviously the most, and most per game, of any team in the playoffs. It's defense though that wins.
A large majority of the time, yes, defense wins. The exception isn’t the rule, as much as you would like it to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Let's put that theory to the test shall we.

If my counting is right, 10 of the last 20 cup winners had defenses that were top 10 in the league. That seems roughly like half...you know like I said before. Of those 20 cup winners, 12 of them had offenses in the top 10.

So more teams with good offenses have won than teams with good defenses.
What you call a “good” defense or good offense is meaningless. Teams that play defense first have won 99.9% of the cups in the last 25 or so years. Nice straw man though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Let's continue with another excerpt from article.

"Let’s not kid ourselves. No matter how great your offense is, of course you want a great defense to go along with it. But the idea that a great defense is some magic bullet – able to transcend gravity, logic, and time – is something we should probably stick in the drawer. Unless, of course, you’re the grizzled old coach who invented the cliché. It is a catchy saying, and you, sir, are entitled to use it forever, untrue as it may be."

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/02/...onship-cliche/

Here are the statistical studies that article sites.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008...pionships.html

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/...championships/

From those studies:

"We found that when it comes to winning a title, or winning in sports in general for that matter, offense and defense carry nearly identical weight. For example, here’s what Berman didn’t tell you: the number of Super Bowl champs with a top 10 offense? Thirty-eight. And a top 3 offense? Twenty. In other words, offense wins championships, too."

Balance again.

"Admittedly, there are some special qualities about the playoffs. The outdoor weather in northern cities can be extreme, and the home team is more often the better team. Weather may indeed affect the balance of offense and defense, but it likely affects the balance between running and passing games more. And weather affects both opponents in a game, so it's not clear if it really matters. Playoff weather could also be analyzed in further research."

I'd categorize this as luck/other.

"So when looking at the NFL as a whole, offense and defense balances symmetrically."

Balance again.

"But when focusing on the right tails of performance, where playoff teams come from, we see that great offenses out-pace equally great defenses"
Again, since you missed it before. Teams that play defense first have won 99.9% of cups in the last 25 or so years. You can try to introduce all the offensive discussion into it as you want but it doesn’t change anything.

Another nice straw man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Do we have great goalies winning every year?
Most years, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Seriously, there have been more above-average goalies then great goalies that have won cups.
No, actually the inverse is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
There are plenty of teams built from the net out that haven't done squat in recent memory. The Rangers for example, have not done well until this past year because they lack balance.
Only one team wins the cup, almost always a team that plays defense first, and usually with a stud goalie. Lack of balance had nothing to do with Rangers losing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
I've already shown this isn't actually true.
Actually you haven’t. All you brought to the table was a silly theory on how a cup is won (luck, health, and matchups), immeasurable reasons a team won a title (puck possession), calling top ten defenses in the NFL “good”, tried to somehow explain a team didn’t out pitch their opponents to win a World Series, and threw in a few straw men for emphasis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Yes the Kings were balanced. Once Richards got healthy, and traded for Carter they finally had secondary scoring. Which made them balanced, and separated them from a team like the Rangers who are all defense and goalie.
This is one of your better ones. Let’s look at how most people of average intelligence would interpret the word balance. A simple definition…..

bal•anced
adjective
1.
being in harmonious or proper arrangement or adjustment, proportion, etc.

So the Kings were balanced you say. 29th in goal scoring, 2nd in goals allowed. Yeah real balanced. They were one spot away in each category from being as disproportional as a team could possibly be in the NHL.

You can’t be serious.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
I usually don't respond with this many quotes, and such. I like to keep things in my own words. However, I provided my thoughts for you, and you responded with an LOL. If you still liked to LOL, then you can go bring it up with Mr. Snider, and the authors, sportswriters, and mathematicians I quoted in this response.
You shouldn’t respond with that many quotes. Sometimes less is more.

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 07:16 AM
  #55
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING View Post
Yes he does, especially after Homer came out and said what he did after the season about the lack of defense in Lavi’s system. Thirty minutes later Lavi is defending it to the press. I guess you missed that.



Lavi winning a cup in Carolina was an aberration. Teams didn’t win cups before Lavi did playing that way, and they haven’t won that way since.



Exactly, but just during that playoff year.



But their defense first system and commitment to it, won them a cup that postseason.



No, their defense first system won them a cup that postseason. You can try to twist numbers all day long, bottom line is once Pitt committed to defense first, a cup was won.



No, but you may if you find more numbers to twist and misrepresent the facts.



Yeah the fans. That’s where all the answers are found.



Yes. One series (6 games) is far from telling you the answer you think you know. That team played around 100 games that year. You can keep extrapolating your opinion from a 6 game series, I’ll look at the body of work.



So no facts to support this “puck possession” theory of yours? Maybe I should check with the fans.



No, they were good at minimizing opponents shots because they played defense first. 5th best defensive team in the NHL during the season. Without puck possession time #’s, your theory can’t be supported and collapses like the a dandelion on a hot summer day.

MIT conference? Really? Try finding out a little something about Barry Smith before you bring up MIT Conferences. Sorry but defense first systems aren’t developed at university conferences. LMAO.




Laughing as I type this one. Yeah let’s ask the owner, the one who outspent almost every team in the league for years in the pre-cap era, (sometimes the highest payroll), hasn’t won a cup in 37 years, and still hasn’t found the right architect to construct a champion. That guy is the authority on how to build cup winners.

He’s a great businessman, but 37 years without a cup pretty much speaks for itself. You have to bring someone with a little championship mojo to the table if you want to support your good matchup, stay healthy, try to be good, get lucky blueprint to a cup theory.



Regurgitating Ed’s excuses doesn’t lend support to your theory. Care to try again?






A small role, but Tampa was the better defensive team in the ECF, that is the biggest reason they won.



More regurgitation of excuses.



The teams that play defense first will still continue to win cups, no matter how much luck you or anyone else thinks is involved. The Kings didn’t get lucky, they won because of their defense first style of play. They didn’t win the cup playing Lavi style pond hockey.



There’s an old saying, “offense plays the game, defense wins the game.” Yeah luck and health is what does it.




Not at all. More than a coincidence that they won them as a team built around their defense. How did they beat the greatest show on turf? By outscoring them 55-52? NO. THEY WON IT WITH DEFENSE.



The Colts didn’t win squat until Dungy, a DEFENSIVE COACH, arrived and drastically improved the defense. That unit was 29th out of 32 teams two years before winning the Super Bowl.

The Saints, the aberration, similar to Carolina. No surprise you bring them up.

Packers, 5th best defensive team in the NFL the year they won the Super Bowl. Try again.



49ers 1981 2nd ranked defense
49ers 1984 10th ranked defense
49ers 1988 3rd ranked defense
49ers 1989 4th ranked defense
49ers 1994 8th ranked defense

Cowboys 1992 1st ranked defense
Cowboys 1993 9th ranked defense
Cowboys 1995 9th ranked defense

Those aren’t good defenses, they are great defenses by any objective measure. Funny how you leave out the Ravens, Buccaneers, and 85 Bears. Good thing you did though, it would have only made your theory look even more preposterous.



OK. 3rd best defense in the playoffs last year. That team has been built around their defense since the days of Parcells.



They outpitched the Phillies in that series, that’s why they won.



A large majority of the time, yes, defense wins. The exception isn’t the rule, as much as you would like it to be.



What you call a “good” defense or good offense is meaningless. Teams that play defense first have won 99.9% of the cups in the last 25 or so years. Nice straw man though.


Again, since you missed it before. Teams that play defense first have won 99.9% of cups in the last 25 or so years. You can try to introduce all the offensive discussion into it as you want but it doesn’t change anything.

Another nice straw man.


Most years, yes.

No, actually the inverse is true.



Only one team wins the cup, almost always a team that plays defense first, and usually with a stud goalie. Lack of balance had nothing to do with Rangers losing.




Actually you haven’t. All you brought to the table was a silly theory on how a cup is won (luck, health, and matchups), immeasurable reasons a team won a title (puck possession), calling top ten defenses in the NFL “good”, tried to somehow explain a team didn’t out pitch their opponents to win a World Series, and threw in a few straw men for emphasis.



This is one of your better ones. Let’s look at how most people of average intelligence would interpret the word balance. A simple definition…..

bal•anced
adjective
1.
being in harmonious or proper arrangement or adjustment, proportion, etc.

So the Kings were balanced you say. 29th in goal scoring, 2nd in goals allowed. Yeah real balanced. They were one spot away in each category from being as disproportional as a team could possibly be in the NHL.

You can’t be serious.




You shouldn’t respond with that many quotes. Sometimes less is more.
Hahahaha dude I'm not even ******** you, I'm so glad I get to work first cause I literally laughed my ass off here while reading this. You have just been added to my list of posters who have made me laugh the most: Beef, BernieParent, Valhoun, and now you.

I'll give you the short and sweet version: You're wrong. I showed you you were wrong in several different ways, citing several reliable sources. There isn't much else I can do.

You laugh at the MIT conference yet don't even know what it is. It's 5 GM's and/or executives discussing the sport, the aspects of a player and team that the value, and their use of statistics...which you seem to not care for because I literally presented you indisputable facts, and statistical evidence.

It's funny that you bring up the 49ers' and Cowboys' defensive stats, yet leave out that their offenses rankings. You also have very low standards for what you define as great. Really the 8th and 9th best defenses are great? I don't think so dude.

Furthermore, here's how the 49ers' offense was during their SB winning years:

Never worse than 7th in the Regular Season.
1st ever year in the playoffs except 1 year where they were 2nd.

The Cowboys offense in the regular season:

2nd, 2nd, 3rd

In the playoffs.. 1st every year they won.

Oh yea totally defense first all the way man. No balance whatsoever.

I'm also glad you brought up the Ravens, Bucs, and Bears seeing as they're the actual aberrations. Regardless let's take a look at their SB victories:

Bears 46-10
Ravens 34-7
Bucs 48-21

Could they play D? Yea no ****, but they also scored plenty in that last game. I'll stop there, as I don't want to bruise your ego too much.

Anyway, more top offenses have won the Stanley Cup and Super Bowl than top defenses. That is a fact. There is no getting around that. You are wrong. If you'd like me to go through some more, and show you again every point in your argument where you're wrong, maybe I'll get to it at some point. As it stands now, I wasted enough of my time trying to lead a horse to water, and make it drink.

You can respond if you want, but you'll be wrong again. I'm sure you can bring me more overused and untrue cliches, but I don't really care for them at this point. So do yourself a favor, and take your ball and go home.

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 10:34 AM
  #56
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,003
vCash: 500
This thread is starting to remind me a lot of Triumph the Insult Dog visiting the Weiner Circle on Conan.

Broad Street Elite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 11:53 AM
  #57
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Hahahaha dude I'm not even ******** you, I'm so glad I get to work first cause I literally laughed my ass off here while reading this. You have just been added to my list of posters who have made me laugh the most: Beef, BernieParent, Valhoun, and now you.

I'll give you the short and sweet version: You're wrong. I showed you you were wrong in several different ways, citing several reliable sources. There isn't much else I can do.
You haven't shown anything. You said the Kings were balanced, the facts say they were 1 position away from being as unbalanced as a team could mathematically be in the NHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
You laugh at the MIT conference yet don't even know what it is. It's 5 GM's and/or executives discussing the sport, the aspects of a player and team that the value, and their use of statistics...which you seem to not care for because I literally presented you indisputable facts, and statistical evidence.
First you said it was good health, good matchups, and good luck. After I pointed out how ridiculous that was you bring up some MIT conference that only 5 NHL people attended.

When an accomplished group such as people like Ken Holland, Lou Lamoriello, Brian Burke, Glen Sather, and Bill Torrey make up a panel at an event like this, it might carry some weight.

As far as indisputable facts go, we were ranked 20th in defense this year. How many cup winners have been ranked that low defensively?

Once again, the Kings didn't win because of balance, they won because of defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
It's funny that you bring up the 49ers' and Cowboys' defensive stats, yet leave out that their offenses rankings. You also have very low standards for what you define as great. Really the 8th and 9th best defenses are great? I don't think so dude.
Yes. Plenty of NFL people have called the defenses from the teams you mentioned, great. I'll go with the NFL people on this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Furthermore, here's how the 49ers' offense was during their SB winning years:

Never worse than 7th in the Regular Season.
1st ever year in the playoffs except 1 year where they were 2nd.

The Cowboys offense in the regular season:

2nd, 2nd, 3rd

In the playoffs.. 1st every year they won.

Oh yea totally defense first all the way man. No balance whatsoever.
Unlike the Kings, who were probably the most unbalanced team to ever win a cup, the Cowboys and Niners were balanced. Notice none of them were ranked 20th in defense though.

We were last year and 20th ranked defenses almost never, in the NHL, NBA, or NFL, win championships. More offenses than defenses ranked that low have won titles so that blows a Titanic sized hole in your theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
I'm also glad you brought up the Ravens, Bucs, and Bears seeing as they're the actual aberrations. Regardless let's take a look at their SB victories:

Bears 46-10
Ravens 34-7
Bucs 48-21

Could they play D? Yea no ****, but they also scored plenty in that last game. I'll stop there, as I don't want to bruise your ego too much.
Now you're looking at scoring in one game as the benchmark for evaluating offenses. Wait, you previously failed at that when you mentioned something about watching the Blackhawks in the 6 game SCF when they played around 94 other games that year.

At least you're consistent with trying to make exceptions and aberrations the rule.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Anyway, more top offenses have won the Stanley Cup and Super Bowl than top defenses. That is a fact. There is no getting around that. You are wrong.
More low ranked offenses than low ranked defenses have won the Stanley Cup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
If you'd like me to go through some more, and show you again every point in your argument where you're wrong, maybe I'll get to it at some point. As it stands now, I wasted enough of my time trying to lead a horse to water, and make it drink.
You're trying to debunk facts. They are facts for a reason, because they are true.

Your panel looking at stats at MIT, the good health-good matchup-get lucky blueprint for a cup, and all the hyperlinks to freak sites has done nothing to solidify your drivel.

The funniest one of all was trying to call a team ranked second best defensively and second worst offensively (Kings), a balanced team. An instant classic!!

That's a team at almost complete opposite ends of the spectrum. I don't even think you know what you're saying anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
You can respond if you want, but you'll be wrong again. I'm sure you can bring me more overused and untrue cliches, but I don't really care for them at this point. So do yourself a favor, and take your ball and go home.
I brought you facts, you brought regurgitation and links to freak sites. I feel like a college professor teaching kindergarten.

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 11:58 AM
  #58
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 9,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
This thread is starting to remind me a lot of Triumph the Insult Dog visiting the Weiner Circle on Conan.
This thread is for me to poop on.....

BTW I still enjoy the Triumph episode where he's ripping on all the Star Wars fans. The best was when he ripped the dude in the Darth Vader costume who was describing the control panel on his stomach. "So which button do you push to call up your parents to come pick you up."

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 12:36 PM
  #59
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,019
vCash: 500
Dude just give it up, and let it go. Everyone is wrong at some point in their life. There's no shame in it, unless you do what you're doing now. It's not all that important of a matter in the grand scheme of life anyway.

As for that MIT conference, yea Brian Burke has been on the panel, as has Stan Bowman GM of the Red Wings, as has Jeff Solomon VP of the Kings, Dan Mckinnon Director of Player Personnel for the Pens, the Caps Assistant GM, and the Bruins GM. I'm sure none of them know what they're talking about though.

Also, you really have not brought any facts to the table. Like practically none. I provided actual statistical evidence, and facts, as well as opinions from myself and others. All you have provided is cliches, and an annoying penchant to repeat the same things over and over again, as if they're going to be less wrong the next time.

As for the Kings balance... If you had any semblance of reading comprehension you'd know that I said the Kings were unbalanced before Richards got healthy, and they traded for Carter. After that, they became balanced.

As evidenced by being 3rd in playoff scoring, behind only Pitt and us due to that crazy series, and scoring 3.10 G/G once Carter arrived. Which would place them 4th in the league for G/G. Most unbalanced team to ever win a cup!

Anything else you want me to refute? Seriously dude you're wrong, and I don't really feel like continuing to show you how you're wrong.

EDIT: I missed the "I feel like a college professor teaching kindergarten." comment. Epically ironic.


Last edited by Protest: 06-15-2012 at 12:46 PM.
Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 03:16 PM
  #60
Huggy Bear*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Stuck on the GSP
Country: United States
Posts: 471
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Huggy Bear*
Not with Bryz in goal. Maybe I could see them winning it in 10-15.

Huggy Bear* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2012, 12:19 PM
  #61
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Dude just give it up, and let it go. Everyone is wrong at some point in their life. There's no shame in it, unless you do what you're doing now. It's not all that important of a matter in the grand scheme of life anyway.
You can call it wrong. I presented irrefutable facts regarding team defense in the NHL and NFL with regard to winning championships. Our team D was ranked 20th last year. How many 20th ranked defensive teams have won a cup? You have not provided facts to answer that yet.

Across both leagues, as the facts show, almost every time it is a top 10 defensive team that wins a title. More lower ranked offenses win titles in the NHL and NFL than lower ranked defenses.

You haven't provided any facts to refute that either.

You can interject offense into the conversation all you like but the Kings just won a cup with one that ranked 29th. Your ship is sinking fast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
As for that MIT conference, yea Brian Burke has been on the panel, as has Stan Bowman GM of the Red Wings, as has Jeff Solomon VP of the Kings, Dan Mckinnon Director of Player Personnel for the Pens, the Caps Assistant GM, and the Bruins GM. I'm sure none of them know what they're talking about though.
They know how to play defense first, and they didn't learn that at an MIT conference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Also, you really have not brought any facts to the table. Like practically none.
1. The Colts didn’t win squat until Dungy, a DEFENSIVE COACH, arrived and drastically improved the defense. That unit was 29th out of 32 teams two years before winning the Super Bowl.

2. Packers, 5th best defensive team in the NFL the year they won the Super Bowl. Try again.


3. 49ers 1981 2nd ranked defense
4. 49ers 1984 10th ranked defense
5. 49ers 1988 3rd ranked defense
6. 49ers 1989 4th ranked defense
7. 49ers 1994 8th ranked defense

8. Cowboys 1992 1st ranked defense
9. Cowboys 1993 9th ranked defense
10. Cowboys 1995 9th ranked defense

11. 3rd best defense in the playoffs last year. That team has been built around their defense since the days of Parcells.

There are 13 facts alone right there, three in the first one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
I provided actual statistical evidence, and facts, as well as opinions from myself and others. All you have provided is cliches, and an annoying penchant to repeat the same things over and over again, as if they're going to be less wrong the next time.
See above, none of those are cliches. Not surprising you say that's all I provided though. It falls right in line with you trying and failing to make exceptions and aberrations the rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
As for the Kings balance... If you had any semblance of reading comprehension you'd know that I said the Kings were unbalanced before Richards got healthy, and they traded for Carter. After that, they became balanced. As evidenced by being 3rd in playoff scoring, behind only Pitt and us due to that crazy series, and scoring 3.10 G/G once Carter arrived. Which would place them 4th in the league for G/G. Most unbalanced team to ever win a cup!
There you go again trying and failing to make exceptions and aberrations the rule. So we measure the balance of the Kings on around 25 games instead of the body of work which would include around 95 games.

When you're ranked 2nd defensively and 29th offensively in a 30 team league that's as far unbalanced as you can get unless you're 1st and 30th. Yeah, they're real balanced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Anything else you want me to refute?
I'm still waiting for you to refute things from 2 posts ago. They are irrefutable though, so no surprise you've been unable to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Seriously dude you're wrong, and I don't really feel like continuing to show you how you're wrong.
You haven't been able to disprove one fact I presented. All you provided were links to freak stat websites, and links to Ed Snider giving excuses for failing to win a cup. You also threw in some goofy blueprint to a cup. (health, matchups, and luck)

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2012, 02:54 PM
  #62
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,019
vCash: 500
Lol you're still going. Dude I'm done. You're wrong. I know you're wrong. Everyone who read those long ass posts knows your wrong. Move on with your life. In all seriousness I'm embarrassed for you at this point. Just no more posts on the topic, and forget about it lol.


Last edited by Protest: 06-16-2012 at 03:00 PM.
Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2012, 04:01 PM
  #63
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Lol you're still going. Dude I'm done. You're wrong. I know you're wrong. Everyone who read those long ass posts knows your wrong. Move on with your life. In all seriousness I'm embarrassed for you at this point. Just no more posts on the topic, and forget about it lol.
Don't feel embarrassed, you're just out of bullets that's all. Once pressed to refute the facts, I expected you to wave the white flag. Good night, good hockey.

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2012, 04:46 PM
  #64
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,019
vCash: 500
Lol the white flag?

How long until you stopped being serious, and just wanted to keep going to try to bust my balls?

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2012, 04:48 PM
  #65
funghoul
retardo montalbon
 
funghoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: upper drugs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
keep going. please keep going. you guys are almost there. at that point where you have to click next number to keep reading your posts.

funghoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2012, 04:49 PM
  #66
Giroux 4 MVP
Girøux #28
 
Giroux 4 MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
Just saw this, why the **** was football brought into the conversation.....like really

Giroux 4 MVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2012, 04:50 PM
  #67
funghoul
retardo montalbon
 
funghoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: upper drugs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux 4 MVP View Post
Just saw this, why the **** was football brought into the conversation.....like really
because they tried to overcomplicate hockey with their system descriptions and realized there's only so far you can go without interpreting it through football which really does have nothing to do with anything because hockey is more about creativity and individual skill where football IS execution of set plays. that and theres a bunch of tards egging them on. people love to try and sound smart though. funghoul. go flyers


Last edited by funghoul: 06-16-2012 at 04:56 PM.
funghoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2012, 06:02 PM
  #68
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giroux 4 MVP View Post
Just saw this, why the **** was football brought into the conversation.....like really
I wondered the same thing myself. Protest first brought NFL and MLB references in post #29. Then he provided links to sites about NFL stats. All it did was support the fact that low ranked defenses rarely if ever win championships.

He was supposed to try and refute the fact that more low ranked offenses than low ranked defenses have won the Stanley Cup. Instead he ran out of bullets and waved the white flag. Think Roberto Duran....."No más"


Last edited by 35NW8ING: 06-16-2012 at 06:09 PM.
35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2012, 08:24 PM
  #69
s3x
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 337
vCash: 500
My head hurts from reading this thread, but.... YES, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that our parade will have more than 200,000.

s3x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2012, 09:05 PM
  #70
35NW8ING
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
35NW8ING's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s3x View Post
My head hurts from reading this thread, but.... YES, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that our parade will have more than 200,000.
LA can't even support 1 NFL team. You're surprised there were 200,000? It's actually a great turnout.

35NW8ING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 12:09 PM
  #71
Pantokrator
Who's the clown?
 
Pantokrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Semmes, Alabama
Country: Guatemala
Posts: 4,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
No. I give no reasons beyond my own pessimism.
Agreed. I wonder the ages of those who voted no and yes. I would bet the older folks would be more likely to vote no, the younger ones yes.

Pantokrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 12:13 PM
  #72
FlyersMania2
Registered User
 
FlyersMania2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,549
vCash: 500
The best part is how so many Flyers fans swear up and down that Homer is doing a great job, yet the percentage of no's isnt that much lower than yes's...how could he be doing such a good job if we aren't going to be successful in the next 5 years?

FlyersMania2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 12:37 PM
  #73
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
AICMAM
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 33,873
vCash: 156
I've finally swung with no. I don't see what's different, to cause me to think it'll happen. Timonen is only getting older, replacing him looks unlikely, if we draft a defenseman this year our track record indicates we can't develop him, Bryz is still an expensive mystery, and our young forwards aren't going to learn how to play responsible defense overnight.

I was optimistic in 2009. I boldly predicted to Caps fan friends that the Flyers would win a Cup within 3 years, and I only felt better about that when Pronger and Emery were brought in. They made me look like a genius that year....briefly. Then they lost. Now, I can't find lots of reason to be optimistic. Our forward corps looks really good, but I don't know that they can do it themselves. The team is too flawed right now at other positions.

__________________
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
06-19-2012, 01:03 PM
  #74
Pantokrator
Who's the clown?
 
Pantokrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Semmes, Alabama
Country: Guatemala
Posts: 4,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersMania2 View Post
The best part is how so many Flyers fans swear up and down that Homer is doing a great job, yet the percentage of no's isnt that much lower than yes's...how could he be doing such a good job if we aren't going to be successful in the next 5 years?
Whether or not the Flyers win the Cup does not influence my view of Holmgren. The Flyers are what they are. Things go wrong for no fault of the GM. It is not Holmgren’s fault that Pronger was hurt the last two years. I do think Holmgren has problems, mainly signing players for contracts that are too long and being too quick to react and get rid of 2nd rounders. But I believe that the Flyers are in the mystical realm of disappointment, where if you could assemble the best team ever, somehow they would lose. I have seen too much disappointment over the years with the Flyers to think they will ever win a Cup again until I am dead. I know it is pessimistic, but it helps me cope. The Flyers have helped me handle disappointment really well and taught me to never get my hopes up. It’s a defense mechanism.

Pantokrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 01:05 PM
  #75
Pantokrator
Who's the clown?
 
Pantokrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Semmes, Alabama
Country: Guatemala
Posts: 4,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
I've finally swung with no. I don't see what's different, to cause me to think it'll happen. Timonen is only getting older, replacing him looks unlikely, if we draft a defenseman this year our track record indicates we can't develop him, Bryz is still an expensive mystery, and our young forwards aren't going to learn how to play responsible defense overnight.

I was optimistic in 2009. I boldly predicted to Caps fan friends that the Flyers would win a Cup within 3 years, and I only felt better about that when Pronger and Emery were brought in. They made me look like a genius that year....briefly. Then they lost. Now, I can't find lots of reason to be optimistic. Our forward corps looks really good, but I don't know that they can do it themselves. The team is too flawed right now at other positions.
I learned to not be optimistic back in the 80s when the Flyers had the best defense in the league and lost to Edmonton twice and to the Rangers in between (a team they had beatn 6 times in the regular season and tied once).

Pantokrator 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 03:46 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.