HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Does anybody want Matt Carle back?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-21-2012, 05:57 PM
  #226
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
It's very clear that Carle produced offensively. In 5 on 5 play, only Coburn was on for more goals for. And Carle finished in the top 20 in points for NHL defenseman. How come it wasn't inevitable that Coburn racked up the same point totals? There wasn't much difference in ice time. Again, Carle got his points by accident. Just by being there! LOL

It's very clear that Carle was effective. Certainly not as effective as he was in 10/11. But definitely effective.
So you're just going to ignore the detailed stats that very clearly indicate that the offense was more effective without Carle than they were with him. Instead you're just going to point at a simplistic goal total and pretend that disproves my point. It doesn't.

If Carle is so integral to the offense, why were they generally better when he wasn't on the ice? 195 goals were scored without Carle's involvement, in the 37 minutes per game he wasn't playing. To get extremely simplistic, let's pretend all of the Flyers 265 goals were scored in one game. 195 in 37 minutes is a rate of 5.27 per minute. 65 in 23 minutes is a rate of 2.82 per minute. You may notice that is less production in the 23 minutes Carle played. It's a weird way to show that, but it's corroborated by the stats, which indicates it is a decent example. The team produced more with Carle off the ice. How do you explain that?

__________________
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
06-21-2012, 05:59 PM
  #227
fauxflex
Registered User
 
fauxflex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
The Flyers Coaches are familiar with the situation. They disagree with you. Paul Holmgren is familiar with the situation. He disagrees with you. The entire League disagrees with you.

And here's the kicker. If Carle was as bad as you say he is. It would show up in the stats. They aren't independant of each other.
Apparently, reading comprehension isn't
it your strongest suit.

RE: the coaches:

The Flyers coaches have to play the players they're given. Do you think they really want Matt Carle playing top minutes? That was done out of need, not preference (similar to Eminger in Tampa).

RE: Holmgren:

Holmgren disagrees with me how? The entire league too? LOLz Got a link for that? I didn't think so.


Where did I say Carle was a bad player? Oh, that's right, I didn't...you just latched on to the negatives I pointed out and erroneously assumed that was the case.

To your "kicker", I say that sometimes a player's stats don't tell the whole story, which was kind of the whole point of my previous post. Eminger outproduced Carle in the year they were traded for each other in terms of pts per game and powerplay production. If what you said was true, and assuming Eminger is a significantly inferior player, why didn't the considerable differences between the two show up in the stats? Hmmmmm...yeah.

fauxflex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 06:03 PM
  #228
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post




I mostly agree with this. However, you have to understand the way you describe him as a player, and this idea of him don't mesh.
I didn't see this before, and I didn't see that part of his response to you. I also agree with his assessment, and I also agree with your comment in response to it. As I've mentioned earlier, VanSciver says that, but then he turns around and paints a picture of Carle that depicts him as being much more than that. There's some definite dissonance there.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 06:06 PM
  #229
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
So you're just going to ignore the detailed stats that very clearly indicate that the offense was more effective without Carle than they were with him. Instead you're just going to point at a simplistic goal total and pretend that disproves my point. It doesn't.

If Carle is so integral to the offense, why were they generally better when he wasn't on the ice? 195 goals were scored without Carle's involvement, in the 37 minutes per game he wasn't playing. To get extremely simplistic, let's pretend all of the Flyers 265 goals were scored in one game. 195 in 37 minutes is a rate of 5.27 per minute. 65 in 23 minutes is a rate of 2.82 per minute. You may notice that is less production. It's a weird way to show that, but it's corroborated by the stats, which indicates it is a decent example. The team produced more with Carle off the ice. How do you explain that?
No I'm not going to ignore it at all. I'm going to look at it with all the other metrics available. You want to have tunnel vision and only look at that one number. Why because you think it proves your point. It doesn't.
Your talking about 2.58 versus 2.90. That is miniscule. Only Coburn among defenseman was on the ice for more goals for then Carle was in 5 on 5. Only Timonen registered more points the Carle did. Now let's add in the 21 goals that were scored on the PP when Carle was on the ice. Now it wouldn't be an accurate comparison to compare Carle to Coburn in all of that, because Coburn didn't play much on the PP. But obviously when you add it up, only Timonen was on the ice for more goals for then Carle. And the total was 84-83. Not counting any shorthanded scoring. So obviously, Carle was pretty effective.

You have to look at the total picture. And take all of the information in.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 06:10 PM
  #230
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
No I'm not going to ignore it at all. I'm going to look at it with all the other metrics available. You want to have tunnel vision and only look at that one number. Why because you think it proves your point. It doesn't.
Your talking about 2.58 versus 2.90. That is miniscule. Only Coburn among defenseman was on the ice for more goals for then Carle was in 5 on 5. Only Timonen registered more points the Carle did. Now let's add in the 21 goals that were scored on the PP when Carle was on the ice. Now it wouldn't be an accurate comparison to compare Carle to Coburn in all of that, because Coburn didn't play much on the PP. But obviously when you add it up, only Timonen was on the ice for more goals for then Carle. And the total was 84-83. Not counting any shorthanded scoring. So obviously, Carle was pretty effective.

You have to look at the total picture. And take all of the information in.
Yes, Carle was on for more goals than Coburn. Yet overall, the team scored more when Carle wasn't on the ice. Their production was higher; that's a simple fact.

But let's not get sidetracked. Coburn has nothing to do with this, the point is the team was more effective offensively when Carle was on the bench. Why? Probably because he was thrust into a role he isn't suited for out of necessity, and was in over his head. That would be my guess.

You should follow your own advice, and take in all the information.

Edit: Got Coburn/Carle mixed up in that first paragraph. It doesn't matter though, because it's irrelevant to what I'm saying. What's relevant is that the Flyers were more productive with Carle off the ice.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 06:18 PM
  #231
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gorgar View Post
Apparently, reading comprehension isn't
it your strongest suit.

RE: the coaches:

The Flyers coaches have to play the players they're given. Do you think they really want Matt Carle playing top minutes? That was done out of need, not preference (similar to Eminger in Tampa).

Carle has played top minutes for the Flyers on the defense in the back end for 3 straight Seasons now. His ice time is as follows for the last 3 Seasons.

11/12 23:01
10/11 21:59
9/10 23:23

It sure seems like they don't want to play Carle top minutes. LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by gorgar View Post
RE: Holmgren:

Holmgren disagrees with me how? The entire league too? LOLz Got a link for that? I didn't think so.
He disagrees with you because he wants to re-sign him. And if he does, you can bet that Carle will again be playing top minutes. And yes, I do have a link for it

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/f...ne-impact.html

In Philadelphia, Carle’s value often goes unrecognized. Some Flyers fans may see him as overrated, someone who commits turnovers and accomplishes little when he’s not paired with Chris Pronger.

The fact is that is not how Carle is viewed around the NHL, where opposing general managers see him as an under-appreciated, cerebral skater who fluidly transitions from zone-to-zone with little effort. While not overly physical, Carle does not shy away from contact and he is durable. He’s missed just 2 games over the last 3 seasons.

Most noticeably, Carle is consistent nightly, strong positionally and steady with the puck on the power play.



Quote:
Originally Posted by gorgar View Post
Where did I say Carle was a bad player? Oh, that's right, I didn't...you just latched on to the negatives I pointed out and erroneously assumed that was the case.
Absolutely you did. Here is what you said

"Things like his soft defensive play, poor gap control, defensive zone turnovers, the lack of ability to run a powerplay, a penchant for risky passes, a poor shot, etc"

That's not the description of a bad player? LOL. It certainly is. We won't even get into how inaccurate it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gorgar View Post
To your "kicker", I say that sometimes a player's stats don't tell the whole story, which was kind of the whole point of my previous post. Eminger outproduced Carle in the year they were traded for each other in terms of pts per game and powerplay production. If what you said was true, and assuming Eminger is a significantly inferior player, why didn't the considerable differences between the two show up in the stats? Hmmmmm...yeah.
Stats don't lie. Are pts per game and PP production the only measurement of a player? Is that the only standard by which you would judge who a better player is?

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 06:25 PM
  #232
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Yes, Carle was on for more goals than Coburn. Yet overall, the team scored more when Carle wasn't on the ice. Their production was higher; that's a simple fact.

But let's not get sidetracked. Coburn has nothing to do with this, the point is the team was more effective offensively when Carle was on the bench. Why? Probably because he was thrust into a role he isn't suited for out of necessity, and was in over his head. That would be my guess.

You should follow your own advice, and take in all the information.

Edit: Got Coburn/Carle mixed up in that first paragraph. It doesn't matter though, because it's irrelevant to what I'm saying. What's relevant is that the Flyers were more productive with Carle off the ice.
I am taking in all the information. How many points Carle scored, and how many goals he was on for, is certainly a big part of it. It was higher, .32 higher. If you want to beleive that that number alone states that Carle was ineffective offensively. Knock yourself out. But that is clearly not the case. Were not even getting into all the other metrics available for offense. There's a lot more info out there. I'm not the best guy to give that and explain that as far as advanced stats are concerned.

If you want to say that Carle shouldn't be leading an NHL team in ice time, I would agree with you 100%. He shouldn't. That should be a true #1 such as Pronger, or a healthy Timonen. But someone had to step up when they had to cut Timonen's minutes to try and keep him fresh, and with the loss to Pronger. Not to mention the injury to Meszaros late in the Season. Carle did that, and did a dam good job.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 06:30 PM
  #233
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I am taking in all the information. How many points Carle scored, and how many goals he was on for, is certainly a big part of it. It was higher, .32 higher. If you want to beleive that that number alone states that Carle was ineffective offensively. Knock yourself out. But that is clearly not the case. Were not even getting into all the other metrics available for offense. There's a lot more info out there. I'm not the best guy to give that and explain that as far as advanced stats are concerned.

If you want to say that Carle shouldn't be leading an NHL team in ice time, I would agree with you 100%. He shouldn't. That should be a true #1 such as Pronger, or a healthy Timonen. But someone had to step up when they had to cut Timonen's minutes to try and keep him fresh, and with the loss to Pronger. Not to mention the injury to Meszaros late in the Season. Carle did that, and did a dam good job.
You keep dancing around my posts without addressing my point. If Carle was so good, why was the offense scoring less when he was on the ice? Point totals for the season are irrelevant for this discussion. That's a completely different deal. This is about impact on the team's performance. The stats indicate that Carle's impact was not nearly as positive as you claim.

How do you explain the team producing more when Carle was watching? Will you ever address that? Or are you just going to keep wasting my time by avoiding the issue?

Edit: Oh, and remember when I claimed that Carle has a tendency to kill offensive opportunities with his weak shot that's easily handled by goalies, or blocked and cleared? These stats back that up. You wanted facts, you have them. Now, as per usual, you are doing your best to ignore them.

Edit 2: This sort of brings us back full circle...all of this goes back to my original point, stated long ago and maybe in a different thread, that overpaying Carle and keeping him in the same role he was in last year is not good. It does nothing to improve the team, and the higher cap hit he might be seeing will be a detriment overall.


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 06-21-2012 at 06:36 PM.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 06:35 PM
  #234
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
You keep dancing around my posts without addressing my point. If Carle was so good, why was the offense scoring less when he was on the ice? Point totals for the season are irrelevant for this discussion. That's a completely different deal. This is about impact on the team's performance. The stats indicate that Carle's impact was not nearly as positive as you claim.

How do you explain the team producing more when Carle was watching? Will you ever address that? Or are you just going to keep wasting my time by avoiding the issue?
I didn't dance around anything. I even referenced the difference between Carle on and Carle off. Point totals aren't irrelevant. They are totally relevant. You don't get to decide the parameters for my opinion. I did address it. That one metric isn't the only metric available. Carle was on the ice for 83 goals for during the Season. Only Timonen among the defenseman was on for more, with 84 in ES and PP play.

The stats don't indicate that Carle's impact was not nearly as positive at all, as I claim. I'd like to see you quantify my claim of how positive Carle was. That is but one metric available.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 06:37 PM
  #235
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,676
vCash: 500
Why does the team as a whole produce at a lower rate with Carle on the ice?

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 06:43 PM
  #236
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Why does the team as a whole produce at a lower rate with Carle on the ice?
I don't know, do you know why?

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 06:51 PM
  #237
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I don't know, do you know why?
I obviously can't know for sure, as there are a lot of factors that would be involved. I have some theories, though. As I stated earlier, injuries put Carle in position where he was in over his head; that was likely a factor. I also believe that his lack of shot is a big negative on offense, especially when he's leading a pairing on the blue line 23 minutes a night. His shot is easily handled by goalies; even if it's going wide they often glove it and smother. His shots get blocked and are turned over at a noticeable rate, which hampers offense. He spent a lot of time with rookie partners as well, which I'm sure had an impact. The solution? I think getting Carle in a reduced role or paired with a good partner who can be the dominant member of the pairing would do it.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 06:52 PM
  #238
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Which player led Flyers defenseman in Even Strength points in 11/12?

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 06:54 PM
  #239
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
I obviously can't know for sure, as there are a lot of factors that would be involved. I have some theories, though. As I stated earlier, injuries put Carle in position where he was in over his head; that was likely a factor. I also believe that his lack of shot is a big negative on offense, especially when he's leading a pairing on the blue line 23 minutes a night. His shot is easily handled by goalies; even if it's going wide they often glove it and smother. His shots get blocked and are turned over at a noticeable rate, which hampers offense. He spent a lot of time with rookie partners as well, which I'm sure had an impact.
Carle's lack of a shot is a weakness. Carle would be a much more effective point presence if he had the ability to hammer a hard shot from the point. But he doesn't. And that's not going to change. But he's effective in other ways.

I'd like to see the data on how often Carle gets his shot blocked , leading to a turnover. Can you provide that for me Please?

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 06:56 PM
  #240
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Which player led Flyers defenseman in Even Strength points in 11/12?
It doesn't matter too much when he's a net negative on offense, as indicated by the notably reduced production while he's playing. It's also not a terribly impressive feat considering his competition is injured players, rookies, and a guy who isn't an offensive defenseman.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 07:01 PM
  #241
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
It doesn't matter too much when he's a net negative on offense, as indicated by the notably reduced production while he's playing. It's also not a terribly impressive feat considering his competition is injured players, rookies, and a guy who isn't an offensive defenseman.
Of course it doesn't matter! LOL. And where does it say he's a net negative on offense? More humor! I guess it wasn't impressive either when he led the entire League in ES points for defenseman in 10/11 either huh? LOL

So in other words, any thing that Carle does is by accident, default, lack of competition, etc. And certainly not due to Carle being a very good offensive defenseman. Nah, can't be.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 07:06 PM
  #242
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,676
vCash: 500
I give up for the night, you're just ignoring everything presented to you and using tunnel vision on points alone while ignoring the whole. You have fun arguing that Carle is no more than a complimentary defenseman, then describing him as a #1, before becoming indignant when people claim he's just a complimentary guy.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 07:12 PM
  #243
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
I give up for the night, you're just ignoring everything presented to you and using tunnel vision on points alone while ignoring the whole. You have fun arguing that Carle is no more than a complimentary defenseman, then describing him as a #1, before becoming indignant when people claim he's just a complimentary guy.
I've never come close to describing Carle as a #1 defenseman. In fact, here is what I said just a little earlier today.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1209405&page=9

"The bottom line is that Carle has proven that he can be a solid compliment as a #2 defenseman, playing with a legitimate #1 defenseman. Take in the entire statement. Not just part of it. Is Carle a defenseman you'd want playing on a top pairing with an equal or lesser partner? No, you wouldn't. It's about the mix of players, and how they compliment each other when you build a defense. If Carle is going to be partnered with say a Grossmann, Meszaros, or Coburn. Then that would ideally be a 2nd pairing. Not a first pairing"

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...209405&page=10

"If you want to say that Carle shouldn't be leading an NHL team in ice time, I would agree with you 100%. He shouldn't. That should be a true #1 such as Pronger, or a healthy Timonen"

So obviously you are incorrect in stating that I have described Carle as a #1 defenseman. Again, that is another misinterpretation by you, of my statements regarding Carle as a player.

I'm not using tunnel vision. I'm looking at all the numbers. Not just the one that you want to focus on. That's where the tunnel vision is. We haven't even discussed other metrics that are available.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 07:51 PM
  #244
Alchemy
Philadelphia Flyers
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 12,638
vCash: 500
The emergence of Coburn makes Carle expendable.

As much as Homer talks up Carle in the media he will let him walk. After seeing Coburn take that next step this past playoff season its time to give him the chance to be that top pairing defenseman. Let Carle walk and go a new direction. Free up that cap space.

Alchemy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 07:55 PM
  #245
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sm0ka47 View Post
The emergence of Coburn makes Carle expendable.

As much as Homer talks up Carle in the media he will let him walk. After seeing Coburn take that next step this past playoff season its time to give him the chance to be that top pairing defenseman. Let Carle walk and go a new direction. Free up that cap space.
There is no such thing as a player being expendable. Coburn and Carle are two completely different types of defenseman. Holmgren is not going to let Carle walk, unless he deals for a defenseman before then

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 08:02 PM
  #246
DenverBoone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uFish Invictus View Post
I give up for the night, you're just ignoring everything presented to you and using tunnel vision on points alone while ignoring the whole. You have fun arguing that Carle is no more than a complimentary defenseman, then describing him as a #1, before becoming indignant when people claim he's just a complimentary guy.
Beef, maybe you should give it a rest. The composition, content and persuasiveness of his posts have you outmatched here. We get you don't like Carle. And please, don't delete my post just because you disagree with it.

DenverBoone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 08:06 PM
  #247
Alchemy
Philadelphia Flyers
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 12,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
There is no such thing as a player being expendable. Coburn and Carle are two completely different types of defenseman. Holmgren is not going to let Carle walk, unless he deals for a defenseman before then
Maybe there isn't. But with the emergence of Coburn finally growing into that shutdown role and showing some offensive flair, i wouldn't be surprised if Carle walks. Matt Carle isn't as bad as the posters around here make him seem. For his raise in salary which he is due isn't worth it at all and if they resign him it could really handcuff the flyers in the future unless they were able to unload Mez off somewhere.

I do see homer making a move to beef up the defense but i don't think Carle is an option he is considering to stay. He shook up the forward corps last year and he will be looking to do it again this year. This time with the defense.

Alchemy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 08:27 PM
  #248
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 39,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBoone View Post
Beef, maybe you should give it a rest. The composition, content and persuasiveness of his posts have you outmatched here. We get you don't like Carle. And please, don't delete my post just because you disagree with it.
That would make sense if he had addressed a single point of mine while I looked at the the grander scheme and how Carle fits into it, instead of saying "but he had points!" and ignoring all the stats I presented, or the fact that the team is less productive while Carle played. While I've been focussing on Carle's overall effect on the team, he's completely neglected to address those points and has tried to steer away from the subject by mentioning Carle's individual accomplishments.

Nice try though. As far as trolling attempts go, it's about a 3/10. I'll let you get back to you Carle shrine, I'm sure its statue needs it's 12th daily polishing.


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 06-21-2012 at 08:33 PM.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 09:18 PM
  #249
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sm0ka47 View Post
Maybe there isn't. But with the emergence of Coburn finally growing into that shutdown role and showing some offensive flair, i wouldn't be surprised if Carle walks. Matt Carle isn't as bad as the posters around here make him seem. For his raise in salary which he is due isn't worth it at all and if they resign him it could really handcuff the flyers in the future unless they were able to unload Mez off somewhere.

I do see homer making a move to beef up the defense but i don't think Carle is an option he is considering to stay. He shook up the forward corps last year and he will be looking to do it again this year. This time with the defense.
Coburn's play has nothing to do with Carle. They are used in different roles. Coburn plays on the PK and is used in more defensive situations. Carle is an offensive defenseman who plays on the PP, and in offensive situations. When your building a defense you need a mix of players. Players that bring different skill sets that compliment each other. As there are very few NHL defenseman who possess all the skills you want in a defenseman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
That would make sense if he had addressed a single point of mine while I looked at the the grander scheme and how Carle fits into it, instead of saying "but he had points!" and ignoring all the stats I presented, or the fact that the team is less productive while Carle played. While I've been focussing on Carle's overall effect on the team, he's completely neglected to address those points and has tried to steer away from the subject by mentioning Carle's individual accomplishments.

Nice try though. As far as trolling attempts go, it's about a 3/10. I'll let you get back to you Carle shrine, I'm sure its statue needs it's 12th daily polishing.
I haven't completely neglected anything. I even mentioned the difference in the stat you are fixated on of 2.58 -2.90. So how have I ignored it? I ignored all the stats you presented? All? Your presenting one stat, and your the one who is ignoring everything else.

Here's the bottom line. When you put ALL the information available on Carle. Which I have presented. Which includes all stats, performance metrics, analysis from credible sources. It all points to one thing. And that is that Carle is a good NHL Defenseman. And just so there is no misunderstanding. Not a #1 Defenseman, not a great defenseman. And certainly not a Hall of Fame Defenseman. Which you laughably accused me of rating Carle as. And it is irrefutable. And no matter how hard you try. You can't change that fact. None of the Carle detractors on this forum can. It's just the way it is.

So my suggestion to you is to take the solid advice that that poster has given you. Or we can continue on. I enjoy this. And I can go on forever. The facts are on my side.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 10:00 PM
  #250
Alchemy
Philadelphia Flyers
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 12,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Coburn's play has nothing to do with Carle. They are used in different roles. Coburn plays on the PK and is used in more defensive situations. Carle is an offensive defenseman who plays on the PP, and in offensive situations. When your building a defense you need a mix of players. Players that bring different skill sets that compliment each other. As there are very few NHL defenseman who possess all the skills you want in a defenseman.
His play very well does. Homer has to evaluate everything. The potential options on the market and his team he is managing. They are both big minute defenseman. Is it time to give Coburn a bigger role to develop him more offensively and go out in free agency or trade to pick up another big minute defenseman? As solid as Carle is. He just doesn't command that salary. They will let him walk. This guy can't even QB a powerplay. A very key trait in an offensive defeneseman. So his value as a an offensive defenseman is automatically replaceable. Hes nowhere near the top when we are talking about defensive ability. Hes about average.

Alchemy 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 04:15 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.